Learning from our patients and each other
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7389.564 (Published 15 March 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:564Data supplement
- BMJ Interactive case reports
Criteria for clinical cases
1. Initial presentation in primary care or emergency medicine department.
2. Subsequent involvement of secondary care specialists in mainstream departments such as obstetrics, gastroenterology, haematology, etc
3. Case sufficiently complex to raise interesting clinical, investigative, diagnostic, and management issues but not so rarefied and "clever" that it is only likely to appeal to a minority of readers. Cases which stimulate debate, air uncertainties and controversies in management, and raise ethical questions, are particularly welcome.
4. Brief details of the social circumstances of the patient must be included with some indication of the (possible) impact on them and their family of their illness. This information is as important as the medical information for it will help generate the debate we hope to stimulate around the patient’s perspective of illness. Patients can opt for anonymity
5. The case can include some additional material—illustrations/boxes etc—to go up on the web for example, ECGs, ultrasound, x rays—which we may not have space for in the paper journal. This material should be used to generate further questions for readers.
6. There needs to be some outcome that we can publish 4-5 weeks after the initial case history and questions. This would usually be the definitive diagnosis (but not inevitably: it may be a presumptive one) and some clear management endpoint.
7. Informed consent from the patient is essential (http://bmj.com/collections/informed_consent/draft_f.shtml) and patients should be invited to be the commentator for their own cases. If they do not want to do this they need to be made aware that we will be inviting a patient advocate to comment on their case in addition to professional commentators.
8. Authors must suggest a list of questions on topics/issues their case raised which they think the expert commentators should address.
Format for presentation
1. Case presentation 1000-1500 words plus at least 3 illustrations, structured as follows:
(i) Initial presentation ± first line on-site tests/investigation plus illustration(s) (approx 350 words)
(ii) Case progression ± illustration(s) (approx 350 words)
(iii) Case outcome + brief comments on management + illustrations(s) (approx 350-400 words)
2. A signed consent from the patient (http://bmj.com/collections/informed_consent/draft_f.shtml) is essential and please indicate if her or she or a related (or unrelated) advocate has agreed to be the expert commentator for the case
3. Please send in a list of key questions/topics/management issues etc that the case raises which the individual commentators should consider seeking to address and discuss the evidence on.
4. We welcome suggestions on the "type" of expert commentators that should be approached and are happy to authors to nominate specific individuals who have been involved in the management of the case in question
Related articles
- Editor's Choice Published: 15 March 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7389.0/e
- Clinical Review Published: 15 March 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7389.588
See more
- Trump chooses Obamacare opponent to lead Health and Human ServicesBMJ November 30, 2016, 355 i6469; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6469
- Drug firms need to tackle affordabilityBMJ November 14, 2016, 355 i6096; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6096
- World Medical Association’s tainted president, Ketan DesaiBMJ November 10, 2016, 355 i5867; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5867
- Cancer drugs, survival, and ethicsBMJ November 09, 2016, 355 i5792; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5792
- WHO refers $29m Oxford research project to GMC for misconductBMJ November 07, 2016, 355 i5971; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5971