Rare case

New report case

Unusual case

Interesting case

• In-depth data collection: Case studies often involve detailed observation, interviews, and analysis of documents and artifacts.
• Contextual analysis: Understanding the context in which the research is conducted is crucial for interpreting the findings.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Using various data sources can help to corroborate and enrich the study's findings.
• Participant perspectives: Capturing the views and experiences of participants adds depth to the research.
• Flexibility: While case studies have a structure, they allow for flexibility in exploring the nuances of the case.
• Analytical insights: The goal is to gain insights that may apply to similar situations or contribute to theory development.

Darlene Williams

Agreement

Thanks

Here is my suggestion on how to write up a case report.

Case study protocol for inclusion in the medical literature. (Version 2.0)

Most case studies are interesting, should be read (and enjoyed) and then promptly forgotten since the cases are usually so rare that it is unlikely you will ever see such a case in your professional career. (Paraphrase from Jerry Hoffman, MD.)

However, if the information is to be more useful for practicing clinicians, case presentations would deserve publication if it is framed in the context of good medical decision making and cognitive processing (prevention of cognitive errors). I propose the following format be used in all case presentation cases in Emergency Medicine.

1. Present the case in as much detail as appropriate.

2. Present the differential diagnosis of the chief complaint that was entertained by the EP who saw the case.

3. Present the outcome of the case.

4. The discussion should then focus on the cognitive processes that were present in the case. The discussion should include the following issues:

a. What is the potential for cognitive error as presented by Pat Croskerry, MD in Academic Medicine, August 2003 and others.

b. Was this a case of a diagnostic error that was prevented (correct diagnosis or near miss) or led to a diagnostic error.

c. What is the differential diagnosis of the chief complaint and where should the reasonable and prudent EP anchor prior to adjustment?

d. Based upon the features of the case, why is there a need to adjust the diagnostic possibilities from the initial “anchor” diagnosis?

e. What appropriate cognitive processes were used to discover the underlying disease? Even though that disease is very unusual, what adjustments should be made on the initial anchor from the differential diagnosis?

f. What are the pitfalls to making those adjustments and what is the danger of overdiagnosis?

g. What cognitive biases could be present that might lead to missed opportunities for making the correct diagnosis?

h. If images or laboratory tests are the feature of the case, what are the cognitive processes leading to the ordering of the images or laboratory tests and how were they interpreted by the EP and the appropriate specialist (usually imaging radiologist or consulting specialist).

i. Provide a brief discussion of underlying pathophysiology of the disease as a didactic part of the article.

There is also a worksheet on case reports from CARE called: CARE checklist (2013) of information to include when writing a case report.

I'm very happy to discuss this further.. Best wishes