Cited by 51Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

To call or not to call: a judgement of risk by pre‐registration house officers

Open access
Stewart, Jane·2008·Medical Education

Abstract

Objectives This study set out to answer the following questions. What influences a junior doctor’s response to a judgement call within a clinical setting? What, if any, are the relationships between these influences? Methods This paper describes an interpretivist study based on a grounded theory approach to data analysis. This involved a phased approach to data collection using semi‐structured interviews. Analysis was facilitated by observations and group presentations. Participants were doctors in their first year of postgraduate practice who were purposively selected from a range of hospitals in the Northern Deanery. Results The data demonstrated a number of influences on whether junior doctors chose to seek senior assistance. These included the upholding and balancing of tenets that were necessary for ensuring safe practice, and estimating the chance and severity of potential negative consequences to patients, themselves and their teams. In order to make these judgements, junior doctors drew on different forms of knowledge, especially knowledge gained from previous clinical experiences. In judging whether or not to contact a senior, pre‐registration house officers (PRHOs) were practising essential clinical attributes, that of independent yet co‐operative and discerning practitioners who are able to balance multiple considerations while ensuring patient care. Conclusions This particular judgement of risk, as it was described by those interviewed, was a dynamic process exemplified by the need to create counterbalances between multiple consequences. As a result, no prescriptive action could have allowed PRHOs to deal with the numerous configurations they faced and took into account.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03123.x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, J.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Stewart, Jane
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-12
Volume
42
Issue
9
Pages
938-944
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2058347044
Cited by
51
References
27
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
pre-registration house officers, medical residents, clinical judgment, risk assessment, clinical decision-making, clinical experience, patient safety, clinical features
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Graduate, England, Humans, Judgment, Medical Staff, Hospital, Risk Factors, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review