Article Text

Download PDFPDF
How are junior doctors managing patients with self-limiting illnesses at their first presentation? A video vignette study
  1. Eugene D’Souza1,
  2. Catherine Krejany1,
  3. Rosie Meng2,
  4. Moyez Jiwa1
  1. 1 School of Medicine, Melbourne Clinical School, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2 Flinders Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Eugene D’Souza, School of Medicine, Melbourne Clinical School, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia; ebdsouza{at}


Purpose To conduct a video vignette survey of medical students and doctors investigating test ordering for patients presenting with self-limiting or minor illness.

Methods Participants were shown six video vignettes of common self-limiting illnesses and invited to devise investigation and management plans for the patients’ current presentation. The number of tests ordered was compared with those recommended by an expert panel. A Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire explored participants’ beliefs and attitudes about ordering tests in the context of self-limiting illness.

Results Participants (n=61) were recruited from across Australia. All participants ordered at least one test that was not recommended by the experts in most cases. Presentations that focused mainly on symptoms (eg, in cases with bowel habit disturbance and fatigue) resulted in more tests being ordered. A test not recommended by experts was ordered on 54.9% of occasions. With regard to attitudes to test ordering, junior doctors were strongly influenced by social norms. The number of questionable tests ordered in this survey of 366 consultations has a projected cost of $17 000.

Conclusions This study suggests that there is some evidence of questionable test ordering by these participants with significant implications for costs to the health system. Further research is needed to explore the extent and reasons for test ordering by junior doctors across a range of clinical settings.

  • investigations
  • overuse
  • inappropriate
  • unnecessary
  • testing
  • Australia
View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors ED planned and conducted the study. ED wrote and submitted the manuscript for publication. MJ was ED supervisor for the research project. RM undertook the statistical analysis of the data. CK and MJ both provided assistance and direction in editing the manuscript in preparation for publication. MJ and CK provided supervision and direction over the course of study.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Notre Dame Australia Human Research Ethics Committee. (approval number: 015065S).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.