PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14601821

Using a head-mounted video camera to study clinical reasoning.

Abstract

Studies of clinical reasoning are essential if we are to extend our knowledge of occupational therapy practice, better communicate our work to clients and colleagues, and reveal to our students the nuances of therapy that cannot be gained from texts. However, accessing therapists' clinical reasoning is not an easy task because these cognitive processes can be studied only indirectly. The aim of this article is to promote the study of clinical reasoning by reviewing a new approach to data collection in this field. To achieve this purpose, the article outlines current data collection methods, such as the think-aloud method written notes, free recall, and audio-assisted and video-assisted recall. A novel method involving a head-mounted video camera is described, and details are provided on a modified approach to debriefing using video-assisted recall. Anecdotes from the authors experience of using this technology illustrate the text.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C A Unsworth. Using a head-mounted video camera to study clinical reasoning.. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.5.582

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials. DESIGN: Before and after evaluation of training programme. SETTING: Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network. PARTICIPANTS: 101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses). INTERVENTION: Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion. RESULTS: Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items. CONCLUSION: This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.

Clinical Competence↗