Search

Background The cognitive pathways that lead to an accurate diagnosis and efficient management plan can touch on various clinical reasoning tasks (1). These tasks can be employed at any point during the clinical reasoning process and though the four distinct categories of framing, diagnosis, management, and reflection provide some insight into how these tasks map onto clinical reasoning, much is still unknown about the task-based clinical reasoning process. For example, when and how are these tasks typically used? And more importantly, do these clinical reasoning task processes evolve when patient encounters become complex and/or challenging (i.e. with contextual factors)? Methods We examine these questions through the lens of situated cognition, context specificity, and cognitive load theory. Sixty think-aloud transcripts from 30 physicians who participated in two separate cases - one with a contextual factor and one without - were coded for 26 clinical reasoning tasks (1). These tasks were organized temporally, i.e. when they emerged in their think-aloud process. Frequencies of each of the 26 tasks were aggregated, categorized, and visualized in order to analyze task category sequences. Results We found that (a) as expected, clinical tasks follow a general sequence, (b) contextual factors can distort this emerging sequence, and (c) the presence of contextual factors prompts more experienced physicians to clinically reason similar to that of less experienced physicians. Conclusions These findings add to the existing literature on context specificity in clinical reasoning and can be used to strengthen teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning.

Objectives Uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis. Though some uncertainty is expected during clinical encounters, it can have detrimental effects on clinical reasoning. Likewise, evidence has established the potentially detrimental effects of the presence of distracting contextual factors (i.e., factors other than case content needed to establish a diagnosis) in a clinical encounter on clinical reasoning. The purpose of this study was to examine how linguistic markers of uncertainty overlap with different clinical reasoning tasks and how distracting contextual factors might affect physicians' clinical reasoning process. Methods In this descriptive exploratory study, physicians participated in a live or video recorded simulated clinical encounter depicting a patient with unstable angina with and without contextual factors. Transcribed think-aloud reflections were coded using Goldszmidt's clinical reasoning task typology (26 tasks encompassing the domains of framing, diagnosis, management, and reflection) and then those coded categories were examined using linguistic markers of uncertainty (e.g., probably, possibly, etc.). Results Thirty physicians with varying levels of experience participated. Consistent with expectations, descriptive analysis revealed that physicians expressed more uncertainty in cases with distracting contextual factors compared to those without. Across the four domains of reasoning tasks, physicians expressed the most uncertainty in diagnosis and least in reflection. Conclusions These results highlight how linguistic markers of uncertainty can shed light on the role contextual factors might play in uncertainty which can lead to error and why it is essential to find ways of managing it.

Introduction: Contextual factors (eg, diagnostic suggestion and burnout) can affect physician clinical reasoning performance, leading to diagnostic error. Yet, contextual factors have only recently been studied and none of that work focused on how physicians appraise (ie, evaluate) the clinical situation as they reason. The purpose of this qualitative study was to use appraisal to describe the effect of contextual factors on clinical reasoning., Materials and Methods: Physicians (n = 25) either viewed two video cases or participated in two live scenarios, one with contextual factors and one without. Afterwards, they completed a "think-aloud" reflection while reviewing the cases. Transcribed think-alouds were coded for appraisal markers, comparing cases with and without contextual factors., Results: When contextual factors were present, participants expressed more emotional evaluation and uncertainty about those emotions. Across all types of cases, participants expressed uncertainty about the case and assessed what "could" or "would" have gone differently., Conclusions: This study suggests that one major effect of contextual factors may be that they induce emotions, which may affect the process of clinical reasoning and diagnostic error. It also suggests that uncertainty may be common in clinical practice, and we should thus further explore its impact., (© Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The impact of context on the complex process of clinical reasoning is not well understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework and videos to provide the same contextual "stimulus" to all participants, we examined the relationship between specific contextual factors on diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning accuracy in board certified internists versus resident physicians., Methods: Each participant viewed three videotaped clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses in internal medicine. We explicitly modified the context to assess its impact on performance (patient and physician contextual factors). Patient contextual factors, including English as a second language and emotional volatility, were portrayed in the videos. Physician participant contextual factors were self-rated sleepiness and burnout.. The accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning was compared with covariates using Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman Rho's correlations as appropriate., Results: Fifteen board certified internists and 10 resident physicians participated from 2013 to 2014. Accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning did not differ between groups despite residents reporting significantly higher rates of sleepiness (mean rank 20.45 vs 8.03, U = 0.5, p < .001) and burnout (mean rank 20.50 vs 8.00, U = 0.0, p < .001). Accuracy of diagnosis and treatment were uncorrelated (r = 0.17, p = .65). In both groups, the proportion scoring correct responses for treatment was higher than the proportion scoring correct responses for diagnosis., Conclusions: This study underscores that specific contextual factors appear to impact clinical reasoning performance. Further, the processes of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, although related, may not be interchangeable. This raises important questions about the impact that contextual factors have on clinical reasoning and provides insight into how clinical reasoning processes in more authentic settings may be explained by situated cognition theory.

Purpose: A framework of clinical reasoning tasks thought to occur in a clinical encounter was recently developed. It proposes that diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning comprise 24 tasks. The authors of this current study used this framework to investigate what internal medicine residents reason about when they approach straightforward clinical cases., Method: Participants viewed three video-recorded clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses. After each video, participants completed a post encounter form and think-aloud protocol. Two authors analyzed transcripts from the think-aloud protocols using a constant comparative approach. They conducted iterative coding of the utterances, classifying each according to the framework of clinical reasoning tasks. They evaluated the type, number, and sequence of tasks the residents used., Results: Ten residents participated in the study in 2013-2014. Across all three cases, the residents employed 14 clinical reasoning tasks. Nearly all coded tasks were associated with framing the encounter or diagnosis. The order in which residents used specific tasks varied. The average number of tasks used per case was as follows: Case 1, 4.4 (range 1-10); Case 2, 4.6 (range 1-6); and Case 3, 4.7 (range 1-7). The residents used some tasks repeatedly; the average number of task utterances was 11.6, 13.2, and 14.7 for, respectively, Case 1, 2, and 3., Conclusions: Results suggest that the use of clinical reasoning tasks occurs in a varied, not sequential, process. The authors provide suggestions for strengthening the framework to more fully encompass the spectrum of reasoning tasks that occur in residents' clinical encounters.