Subtle visual impairment caused by temporoparietal infarction: a case report

Cerebral infarction is associated with various symptoms. Considering its high volume of patients who present with various symptoms, the emergency department is an unfavorable environment for detecting atypical symptoms. A man in his 50 s visited the emergency department because he had experienced subtle discomfort when changing lanes while driving. Several coincidental events could have led to a misdiagnosis, such as the patient's first-ever use of diabetes medication on the day before symptom onset and the patient's first attempt at driving after a 2-week hiatus. A detailed neurological examination and magnetic resonance imaging revealed right temporoparietal infarction; accordingly, the patient received antiplatelet therapy and was discharged. Clinicians increasingly rely on high-tech imaging equipment, rather than history-taking and physical examination approaches. However, clinicians must decide which tests to perform. This report illustrates that when patients present with mild or ambiguous symptoms, clinicians should place greater emphasis on history-taking and physical examination to avoid misdiagnosis.

Need assessment for history-taking instruction program using chatbot for nursing students: A qualitative study using focus group interviews

Purpose

A comprehensive health history contributes to identifying the most appropriate interventions and care priorities. However, history-taking is challenging to learn and develop for most nursing students. Chatbot was suggested by students to be used in history-taking training. Still, there is a lack of clarity regarding the needs of nursing students in these programs. This study aimed to explore nursing students' needs and essential components of chatbot-based history-taking instruction program.

Methods

This was a qualitative study. Four focus groups, with a total of 22 nursing students, were recruited. Colaizzi's phenomenological methodology was used to analyze the qualitative data generated from the focus group discussions.

Results

Three main themes and 12 subthemes emerged. The main themes included limitations of clinical practice for history-taking, perceptions of chatbot used in history-taking instruction programs, and the need for history-taking instruction programs using chatbot. Students had limitations in clinical practice for history-taking. When developing chatbot-based history-taking instruction programs, the development should reflect students' needs, including feedback from the chatbot system, diverse clinical situations, chances to practice nontechnical skills, a form of chatbot (i.e., humanoid robots or cyborgs), the role of teachers (i.e., sharing experience and providing advice) and training before the clinical practice.

Conclusion

Nursing students had limitations in clinical practice for history-taking and high expectations for chatbot-based history-taking instruction programs.

Computer-Assisted versus Oral-and-Written History Taking for the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease: a Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

CVD is an important global healthcare issue; it is the leading cause of global mortality, with an increasing incidence identified in both developed and developing countries. It is also an extremely costly disease for healthcare systems unless managed effectively. In this review we aimed to: - Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the quality of collected information for the prevention and management of CVD. - Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the prevention and management of CVD.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials that included participants of 16 years or older at the beginning of the study, who were at risk of CVD (prevention) or were either previously diagnosed with CVD (management). We searched all major databases. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria. One comparing the two methods of history-taking for the prevention of cardiovascular disease n = 75. The study shows that generally the patients in the experimental group underwent more laboratory procedures, had more biomarker readings recorded and/or were given (or had reviewed), more dietary changes than the control group. The other study compares the two methods of history-taking for the management of cardiovascular disease (n = 479). The study showed that the computerized decision aid appears to increase the proportion of patients who responded to invitations to discuss CVD prevention with their doctor. The Computer- Assisted History Taking Systems (CAHTS) increased the proportion of patients who discussed CHD risk reduction with their doctor from 24% to 40% and increased the proportion who had a specific plan to reduce their risk from 24% to 37%.

DISCUSSION

With only one study meeting the inclusion criteria, for prevention of CVD and one study for management of CVD we did not gather sufficient evidence to address all of the objectives of the review. We were unable to report on most of the secondary patient outcomes in our protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

We tentatively conclude that CAHTS can provide individually-tailored information about CVD prevention. However, further primary studies are needed to confirm these findings. We cannot draw any conclusions in relation to any other clinical outcomes at this stage. There is a need to develop an evidence base to support the effective development and use of CAHTS in this area of practice. In the absence of evidence on effectiveness, the implementation of computer-assisted history taking may only rely on the clinicians' tacit knowledge, published monographs and viewpoint articles.

Assessment of junior doctors' admission notes: do they follow what they learn?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the completeness of history-taking and physical-examination notes of junior doctors at King Abdulaziz University Hospital per the approach they learned in medical school.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed 860 admission notes written by 269 junior doctors (interns and residents) in an academic tertiary-care medical centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over a two-month period. Notes were evaluated for completeness using a checklist developed with reference to relevant medical textbooks. The checklist included 32 items related to history-taking and physical examination. Based on the review of the notes, checklist items were evaluated as complete, incomplete, not present, or not applicable according to set criteria. Data were analysed and summarised for information on the frequency and relative frequency of these types.

RESULTS

The history items varied in completeness. At the high end, asking about chief complaint and duration, associated symptoms, aggravating and relieving factors, and conducting systemic review were marked 'complete' in 74.2%, 81.7%, 80.4%, and 79.7% of notes, respectively. At the low end, asking about previous episodes, allergies, medications, and family history were complete in 5.3%, 1.9%, 4.8%, and 2.9% of notes, respectively. All physical examination items were poorly documented, especially breast examination, which was 'not present' in 95.8% of the notes.

CONCLUSIONS

Junior doctors' history and physical-examination notes are often incomplete and do not follow the approach taught in medical school. The reasons for this must be studied via focus-group discussions with junior doctors.

The art of history-taking in a headache patient

Headache is a common complaint that makes up for approximately 25% of any neurologists outpatient practice. Yet, it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Ninety percent of headaches seen in practice are due to a primary headache disorder where there are no confirmatory tests, and neuroimaging studies, if done, are normal. In this situation, a good headache history allows the physician to recognize a pattern that in turn leads to the correct diagnosis. A comprehensive history needs time, interest, focus and establishment of rapport with the patient. When to ask what question to elicit which information, is an art that is acquired by practice and improves with experience. This review discusses the art of history-taking in headache patients across different settings. The nuances of headache history-taking are discussed in detail, particularly the questions related to the time, severity, location and frequency of the headache syndrome in general and the episode in particular. An emphasis is made on the recognition of red flags that help in the identification of secondary headaches.