Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals' practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968-2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. DISCUSSION: Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of 'clinical reasoning' and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

The terminology of clinical reasoning in health professions education: Implications and considerations.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is considered to be at the core of health practice. Here, we report on the diversity and inferred meanings of the terms used to refer to clinical reasoning and consider implications for teaching and assessment. Methods: In the context of a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review of 625 papers drawn from 18 health professions, we identified 110 terms for clinical reasoning. We focus on iterative categorization of these terms across three phases of coding and considerations for how terminology influences educational practices. Results: Following iterative coding with 5 team members, consensus was possible for 74, majority coding was possible for 16, and full team disagreement existed for 20 terms. Categories of terms included: purpose/goal of reasoning, outcome of reasoning, reasoning performance, reasoning processes, reasoning skills, and context of reasoning. Discussion: Findings suggest that terms used in reference to clinical reasoning are non-synonymous, not uniformly understood, and the level of agreement differed across terms. If the language we use to describe, to teach, or to assess clinical reasoning is not similarly understood across clinical teachers, program directors, and learners, this could lead to confusion regarding what the educational or assessment targets are for "clinical reasoning."

Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance.

PURPOSE: An evidence-based approach to assessment is critical for ensuring the development of clinical reasoning (CR) competence. The wide array of CR assessment methods creates challenges for selecting assessments fit for the purpose; thus, a synthesis of the current evidence is needed to guide practice. A scoping review was performed to explore the existing menu of CR assessments. METHOD: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to 2016 following PRISMA guidelines. Articles of all study design types were included if they studied a CR assessment method. The articles were sorted by assessment methods and reviewed by pairs of authors. Extracted data were used to construct descriptive appendixes, summarizing each method, including common stimuli, response formats, scoring, typical uses, validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages. RESULTS: A total of 377 articles were included in the final synthesis. The articles broadly fell into three categories: non-workplace-based assessments (e.g., multiple-choice questions, extended matching questions, key feature examinations, script concordance tests); assessments in simulated clinical environments (objective structured clinical examinations and technology-enhanced simulation); and workplace-based assessments (e.g., direct observations, global assessments, oral case presentations, written notes). Validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages differed by method. CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous assessment methods that align with different components of the complex construct of CR. Ensuring competency requires the development of programs of assessment that address all components of CR. Such programs are ideally constructed of complementary assessment methods to account for each method's validity and feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages.

Current Trends in Breast Augmentation: Analysis of 2011-2015 Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Tracer Data.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic surgery performed in the United States. Despite its popularity, there is no consensus on many aspects of the procedure. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed current trends and changes in breast augmentation from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 11,756 women who underwent breast augmentation based on the American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) Maintenance of Certification Tracer Database was performed. RESULTS: There were clearly dominant trends in how ABPS-certified plastic surgeons performed breast augmentations. Most surgeries were performed in freestanding outpatient (47.3%) or office operating room (33.7%). The inframammary fold incision was most popular (75.1%), followed by periareolar (17.8%) and transaxillary approaches (4.1%). Implants were more commonly placed in a submuscular pocket (30.6%) compared with dual plane (26.7%) or subglandular (6.7%). Silicone implants (66.8%) were favored over saline (25.1%), with a statistically significant increase in silicone prostheses from 2011 to 2015. Data were "not applicable" or "other" in the remainder of cases. Administration of both preoperative antibiotics (3.8% in 2011, 98.7% in 2015, P < 0.05) and deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis (3.8% in 2011, 90.6% in 2015, P < 0.05) dramatically increased during the study period. Overall adverse events (7.4%) and reoperation rates (2.2%) were low. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in standard of care for breast augmentation are reflected by the evolving practice patterns of plastic surgeons. This is best evidenced by the dramatic increase in use of antibiotic and DVT prophylaxis from 2011 to 2015.

Evolving Trends in Textured Implant Use for Cosmetic Augmentation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast implants have evolved for decades. In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified an association between textured breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The purpose of this study was to identify the trends of textured implant use since that time. METHODS: Maintenance of Certification tracer data were queried between 2011 and 2015 for cosmetic breast augmentation cases submitted by American Board of Plastic Surgery diplomates. A nested random effects logistic regression analysis was used to identify associations between variables. RESULTS: Eleven thousand seven hundred sixteen breast augmentations were performed by 880 unique surgeons. The overall proportion of cases using textured implants increased steadily from 2.3 percent in 2011 to 13.0 percent in 2015 (p < 0.001). The proportion of surgeons whose cases included both textured and smooth implants increased (from 6.2 percent to 24.3 percent), as did those using only textured implants (from 0.4 percent to 4.4 percent) (p < 0.001). Significance remained after controlling for form-stable implants, suggesting an alternative motivation for use of textured implants. Subglandular cases (20.5 percent) were more likely to use a textured implant than submuscular (8.4 percent) or dual-plane (7.8 percent) (p < 0.001) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of Certification tracer data represent a random sampling of American Board of Plastic Surgery-certified plastic surgeons spanning the gamut of practice settings. Despite ongoing education regarding the association of BIA-ALCL with textured implants, American Board of Plastic Surgery diplomates have trended toward increased use of textured implants for cosmetic breast augmentation since 2011. This finding does not appear to be driven by the introduction of anatomical implants during the study period.

Autologous fat grafting to lumpectomy defects: complications, imaging, and biopsy rates.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting is emerging as a promising reconstructive technique after breast conservation therapy (BCT). Recent evidence suggests that autologous fat grafting does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence; however, women may still be subject to unnecessary biopsies secondary to suspicious radiologic findings. The purpose of this study was to assess surgical complications and biopsy rates in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of women who underwent autologous fat grafting after BCT at a single institution over a 6-y period. Independent variables included demographic and operative details. Outcome variables included complications, and incidence of palpable masses and/or suspicious breast imaging findings requiring biopsy. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Between June 2008 and February 2015, 37 women aged 41 to 74 y (mean 54.4 y) underwent a total of 56 fat grafting sessions for correction of contour deformities after BCT. The mean number of fat grafting procedures was 1.5 (range 1-4) per breast. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 99 mo (mean 29.5 mo). Imaging data were available for 31 (83.7%) breasts after autologous fat grafting. Biopsy was recommended in four cases after suspicious imaging findings or palpable masses (10.8%), with benign pathology in all cases. There was one incidence of a local wound infection. No other local or systemic complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a risk of unnecessary biopsies after autologous fat grafting. Complication rates were low, and it appears to be a safe reconstructive option for the correction of contour deformities after BCT.

Drawing Boundaries: The Difficulty in Defining Clinical Reasoning.

Clinical reasoning is an essential component of a health professional's practice. Yet clinical reasoning research has produced a notably fragmented body of literature. In this article, the authors describe the pause-and-reflect exercise they undertook during the execution of a synthesis of the literature on clinical reasoning in the health professions. Confronted with the challenge of establishing a shared understanding of the nature and relevant components of clinical reasoning, members of the review team paused to independently generate their own personal definitions and conceptualizations of the construct. Here, the authors describe the variability of definitions and conceptualizations of clinical reasoning present within their own team. Drawing on an analogy from mathematics, they hypothesize that the presence of differing "boundary conditions" could help explain individuals' differing conceptualizations of clinical reasoning and the fragmentation at play in the wider sphere of research on clinical reasoning. Specifically, boundary conditions refer to the practice of describing the conditions under which a given theory is expected to hold, or expected to have explanatory power. Given multiple theoretical frameworks, research methodologies, and assessment approaches contained within the clinical reasoning literature, different boundary conditions are likely at play. Open acknowledgment of different boundary conditions and explicit description of the conceptualization of clinical reasoning being adopted within a given study would improve research communication, support comprehensive approaches to teaching and assessing clinical reasoning, and perhaps encourage new collaborative partnerships among researchers who adopt different boundary conditions.

Is chronic postsurgical pain surgery-induced? A study of persistent postoperative pain following breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a reported risk for women undergoing breast reconstruction, but it remains unclear that such persistent pain is induced by reconstructive surgery. To address this concern, this prospective cohort study examined the prevalence of and risk factors associated with CPSP among women undergoing breast reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women (n = 1996) recruited for the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium (MROC) Study were assessed preoperatively and at two-years postoperatively for relevant medical/.surgical variables, pain experience, body physical well-being, anxiety, depression, and reconstruction procedure type and characteristics. RESULTS: Nearly half of the entire sample reported some level of preoperative pain. At two years there were statistically significant but not clinically meaningful increases in both pain intensity and chest/upper body discomfort but a decrease in affective pain rating. Average clinical pain severity was strikingly similar for preoperative and postoperative assessments. Preoperative levels of pain, acute postoperative pain, and (marginally) level of depression held consistent relationship at two-year follow-up with all outcome measures. Autologous flap reconstruction was associated with more severe CPSP compared to TE/I reconstruction. Older age, higher BMI, bilateral reconstruction, and adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy were associated with CPSP and chest/upper body discomfort for at least one outcome measure at two years. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial rate of preoperative pain and comparable prevalence of preoperative and postoperative pain ratings suggest that persistent pain after breast reconstruction may not necessarily reflect surgery-induced pain. Future research will need to determine those factors that contribute to long-term pain following breast reconstruction.

Improved Rates of Immediate Breast Reconstruction at Safety Net Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Substantial federal resources have been directed toward ensuring the delivery of high-quality care at safety net hospitals. Although disparities in receipt of breast reconstruction persist at the patient level, the extent to which hospital factors contribute to these differences remains unclear. The rates of immediate breast reconstruction across safety net and non-safety net hospitals were investigated. METHODS: Women 21 years and older with breast cancer or increased risk of breast cancer undergoing immediate post-mastectomy reconstruction were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Safety net hospitals were defined as hospitals with the highest tertile of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payment adjustments. Adjusted odds ratios of undergoing reconstruction were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of patients (n = 10,910) at safety net hospitals underwent immediate reconstruction compared with 46 percent of patients (n = 14,619) at non-safety net hospitals (p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that women at non-safety net hospitals were significantly more likely to undergo reconstruction (OR, 1.89; 95 percent CI, 1.65 to 2.16). However, analysis by study year revealed that rates of reconstruction at safety net hospitals increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for sociodemographic factors, women undergoing mastectomies at safety net hospitals remain less likely to undergo immediate breast reconstruction. However, the differences in rates of reconstruction between safety net and non-safety net hospitals have narrowed over time. The availability of immediate reconstruction lessens the psychological trauma of mastectomy, and it is critical to continue redirecting federal efforts toward this valuable component of breast cancer care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Comparing Health Care Resource Use between Implant and Autologous Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In the debate on reconstruction of the irradiated breast, there is little information on associated health care resource use. Nationwide data were used to examine health care resource use associated with implant and autologous reconstruction. It was hypothesized that failure rates would contribute the most to higher average cumulative cost with either reconstruction method. METHODS: From the 2009 to 2013 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, irradiated breast cancer patients who underwent implant or autologous reconstruction were selected. In a 24-month follow-up period, the cumulative costs of health care services used were tallied and described. Regression models stratified by reconstruction method were then used to estimate the influence of failure on cumulative cost of reconstruction. RESULTS: There were 2964 study patients. Most (78 percent) underwent implant reconstruction. The unadjusted mean costs for implant and autologous reconstructions were $22,868 and $30,527, respectively. Thirty-two percent of implant reconstructions failed, compared with 5 percent of autologous cases. Twelve percent of the implant reconstructions had two or more failures and required subsequent autologous reconstruction. The cost of implant reconstruction failure requiring a flap was $47,214, and the cost for autologous failures was $48,344. In aggregate, failures constituted more than 20 percent of the cumulative costs of implant reconstruction compared with less than 5 percent for autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in 10 patients who had implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy to the breast eventually required a flap for failure. These findings make a case for autologous reconstruction being primarily considered in irradiated patients who have this option available.

Computer Modeling to Evaluate the Impact of Technology Changes on Resident Procedural Volume.

BACKGROUND: As resident "index" procedures change in volume due to advances in technology or reliance on simulation, it may be difficult to ensure trainees meet case requirements. Training programs are in need of metrics to determine how many residents their institutional volume can support. OBJECTIVE: As a case study of how such metrics can be applied, we evaluated a case distribution simulation model to examine program-level mediastinoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) volumes needed to train thoracic surgery residents. METHODS: A computer model was created to simulate case distribution based on annual case volume, number of trainees, and rotation length. Single institutional case volume data (2011-2013) were applied, and 10 000 simulation years were run to predict the likelihood (95% confidence interval) of all residents (4 trainees) achieving board requirements for operative volume during a 2-year program. RESULTS: The mean annual mediastinoscopy volume was 43. In a simulation of pre-2012 board requirements (thoracic pathway, 25; cardiac pathway, 10), there was a 6% probability of all 4 residents meeting requirements. Under post-2012 requirements (thoracic, 15; cardiac, 10), however, the likelihood increased to 88%. When EBUS volume (mean 19 cases per year) was concurrently evaluated in the post-2012 era (thoracic, 10; cardiac, 0), the likelihood of all 4 residents meeting case requirements was only 23%. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides a metric to predict the probability of residents meeting case requirements in an era of changing volume by accounting for unpredictable and inequitable case distribution. It could be applied across operations, procedures, or disease diagnoses and may be particularly useful in developing resident curricula and schedules.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy and Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Is There a Better Time to Irradiate?

BACKGROUND: The ideal timing of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) in the setting of two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction remains unclear. In this cohort study, the authors sought to determine whether complication rates differed between patients who received PMRT following tissue expander placement (TE-XRT) and those who received PMRT after exchange for permanent implants (Implant-XRT) utilizing using prospective, multicenter data. METHODS: Eligible patients in the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium study from 11 institutions across North America were included in the analysis. All patients had at least 6-month follow-up after their last intervention (i.e., implant exchange for TE-XRT patients, and radiation for Implant-XRT patients). Complications including seroma, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, capsular contracture, and implant loss were recorded. RESULTS: The authors identified a total of 150 patients who underwent immediate, two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction and received PMRT. Of these, there were TE-XRT 104 patients (69.3 percent) and 46 (30.7 percent) Implant-XRT patients. There were no differences in the incidence of any complications or complications leading to reconstructive failure between the two cohorts. After adjusting for patient characteristics and site effect, the timing of PMRT (i.e., TE-XRT versus Implant-XRT) was not a significant predictor in the development of any complication, a major complication, or reconstructive failure. CONCLUSION: In the setting of PMRT and two-stage implant-based reconstruction, patients who received PMRT after expander placement (TE-XRT) did not have a higher incidence or increased odds of developing complications than those who received PMRT after exchange for a permanent implant (Implant-XRT). CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Minocycline-induced orbital rim discoloration.

A 20-year-old woman underwent lacrimal gland biopsy for unilateral swelling and was unexpectedly found to have olive-green discoloration of her orbital rim. Postoperative questioning revealed that as a teenager she had been treated for acne with minocycline, a semisynthetic tetracycline antibiotic and a first-line treatment for moderate and severe acne. While hyperpigmentation is a known side effect of minocycline, reports of pigmentation changes of the periorbital bones are relatively rare and could pose a diagnostic dilemma during surgery.

The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009-2015.

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes research has gained considerable traction over the past decade as the medical community attempts to move beyond traditional outcome measures such as morbidity and mortality. Since its inception in 2009, the BREAST-Q has provided meaningful and reliable information regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient satisfaction for use in both clinical practice and research. In this study, we review how researchers have used the BREAST-Q and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of plastic and reconstructive breast surgery. METHODS: An electronic literature review was performed to identify publications that used the BREAST-Q to assess patient outcomes. Studies developing and/or validating the BREAST-Q or an alternate patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), review papers, conference abstracts, discussions, comments and/or responses to previously published papers, studies that modified a version of BREAST-Q, and studies not published in English were excluded. RESULTS: Our literature review yielded 214 unique articles, 49 of which met our inclusion criteria. Important trends and highlights were further examined. DISCUSSION: The BREAST-Q has provided important insights into breast surgery highlighted by literature concerning autologous reconstruction, implant type, fat grafting, and patient education. The BREAST-Q has increased the use of PROMs in breast surgery and provided numerous important insights in its brief existence. The increased interest in PROMs as well as the underutilized potential of the BREAST-Q should permit its continued use and ability to foster innovations and improve quality of care.

Autologous Fat Grafting After Breast Reconstruction in Postmastectomy Patients: Complications, Biopsy Rates, and Locoregional Cancer Recurrence Rates.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting is widely used for refinements in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. However, there are few studies evaluating outcomes in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of autologous fat grafting after breast reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive postmastectomy patients who underwent autologous fat grafting after breast reconstruction at a university center over a 5-year period. Patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, operative details, complications, incidence of palpable masses, and/or suspicious breast imaging findings requiring biopsy, and locoregional cancer recurrence. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Between January 2008 and July 2013, 108 women and a total of 167 breast reconstructions underwent autologous fat grafting for revision of postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Their ages ranged from 22 to 71 years (mean, 48 years). Fat grafts were harvested, processed, and injected using the Coleman technique. The mean number of fat grafting procedures was 1.3 (range, 1-4) per breast. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 57 months (mean, 20.2 months). Fifty-three (31.7%) breasts underwent imaging after autologous fat grafting. Suspicious imaging findings requiring biopsy were discovered in 4 (2.4%) breasts, and clinically palpable lesions combined with suspicious imaging findings requiring biopsy were present in another 4 (2.4%) breasts. All 8 biopsies showed fat necrosis, scar, or oil cysts without evidence of malignancy. One (0.6%) local complication (a wound infection at the recipient site requiring oral antibiotics) after autologous fat grafting was reported. During the limited follow-up period, there were no locoregional cancer recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous fat grafting in conjunction with breast reconstruction resulted in a biopsy rate of 4.8%, and no cases of locoregional cancer recurrence were observed. Based on these preliminary findings, autologous fat grafting appears to be a relatively safe procedure for refinement of the reconstructed breast in postmastectomy patients.