Examining the patterns of uncertainty across clinical reasoning tasks: effects of contextual factors on the clinical reasoning process

Diagnosis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divya Ramani ◽  
Michael Soh ◽  
Jerusalem Merkebu ◽  
Steven J. Durning ◽  
Alexis Battista ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesUncertainty 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.MethodsIn 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.).ResultsThirty 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

Diagnosis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Soh ◽  
Abigail Konopasky ◽  
Steven J. Durning ◽  
Divya Ramani ◽  
Elexis McBee ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe 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)?MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThese findings add to the existing literature on context specificity in clinical reasoning and can be used to strengthen teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitte Ahlsen ◽  
Anne Marit Mengshoel ◽  
Hilde Bondevik ◽  
Eivind Engebretsen

This article investigates the clinical reasoning process of physiotherapists working with patients with chronic muscle pain. The article demonstrates how physiotherapists work with clues and weigh up different plots as they seek to build consistent stories about their patient’s illness. The material consists of interviews with 10 Norwegian physiotherapists performed after the first clinical encounter with a patient. Using a narrative approach and Lonergan’s theory of interpretation, the study highlights how, like detectives, the therapists work with clues by asking a number of interpretive questions of their data. They interrogate what they have observed and heard during the first session, they also question how the patient’s story was told, including the contextual and relation aspects of clue production, and they ask why the patient’s story was told to them in this particular way at this particular time. The article shows how the therapists configure clues into various plots on the basis of their experience of working with similar cases and how their detective work is pushed forward by uncertainty and persistent questioning of the data.


Diagnosis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Konopasky ◽  
Steven J. Durning ◽  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Divya Ramani ◽  
Alexis Battista

AbstractBackgroundThe literature suggests that affect, higher-level cognitive processes (e.g. decision-making), and agency (the capacity to produce an effect) are important for reasoning; however, we do not know how these factors respond to context. Using situated cognition theory as a framework, and linguistic tools as a method, we explored the effects of context specificity [a physician seeing two patients with identical presentations (symptoms and findings), but coming to two different diagnoses], hypothesizing more linguistic markers of cognitive load in the presence of contextual factors (e.g. incorrect diagnostic suggestion).MethodsIn this comparative and exploratory study, 64 physicians each completed one case with contextual factors and one without. Transcribed think-aloud reflections were coded by Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software for markers of affect, cognitive processes, and first-person pronouns. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to inferentially compare these LIWC categories between cases with and without contextual factors. This was followed by exploratory descriptive analysis of subcategories.ResultsAs hypothesized, participants used more affective and cognitive process markers in cases with contextual factors and more I/me pronouns in cases without. These differences were statistically significant for cognitive processing words but not affective and pronominal words. Exploratory analysis revealed more negative emotions, cognitive processes of insight, and third-person pronouns in cases with contextual factors.ConclusionsThis study exposes linguistic differences arising from context specificity. These results demonstrate the value of a situated cognition view of patient encounters and reveal the utility of linguistic tools for examining clinical reasoning.


Diagnosis ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elexis McBee ◽  
Christina Blum ◽  
Temple Ratcliffe ◽  
Lambert Schuwirth ◽  
Elizabeth Polston ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A framework of clinical reasoning tasks used by physicians during clinical encounters was previously developed proposing that clinical reasoning is a complex process composed of 26 possible tasks. The aim of this paper was to analyze the verbalized clinical reasoning processes of medical students utilizing commonly encountered internal medicine cases. Methods In this mixed-methods study, participants viewed three video recorded clinical encounters. After each encounter, participants completed a think-aloud protocol. The qualitative data from the transcribed think-aloud transcripts were analyzed by two investigators using a constant comparative approach. The type, frequency, and pattern of codes used were analyzed. Results Seventeen third and fourth year medical students participated. They used 15 reasoning tasks across all cases. The average number of tasks used in cases 1, 2, and 3 was (respectively) 5.6 (range 3–8), 5.9 (range 4–8), and 5.3 (range 3–10). The order in which medical students verbalized reasoning tasks varied and appeared purposeful but non-sequential. Conclusions Consistent with prior research in residents, participants progressed through the encounter in a purposeful but non-sequential fashion. Reasoning tasks related to framing the encounter and diagnosis were not used in succession but interchangeably. This suggests that teaching successful clinical reasoning may involve encouraging or demonstrating multiple pathways through a problem. Further research exploring the association between use of clinical reasoning tasks and clinical reasoning accuracy could enhance the medical community’s understanding of variance in clinical reasoning.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Amanda Nichole (Mandi) Carr ◽  
Roy Neville Kirkwood ◽  
Kiro Risto Petrovski

Effective clinical teaching is essential for the development of veterinary learners. Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge for veterinary instructors as many lack adequate training in clinical teaching. In this paper, we propose the use of the five-microskills (FMS; also known as the one-minute preceptor) model of clinical teaching as a tool that can be used not only in teaching during clinical encounters but also during traditional teaching sessions (e.g., practicals). The FMS model assists the instructor in estimating the level of knowledge and development of the learner and allows for providing feedback. The FMS model is applicable in the busy clinical or teaching schedule of the instructor and requires training only of the instructor, not the learner. We provide two examples of the use of the FMS model, one of a clinical encounter and the other a biochemistry practical. From the examples, readers should be able to extract the basis of the model and start using it in their day-to-day practice. For proper use of the model, 1–4 h of training is usually recommended.


Diagnosis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerusalem Merkebu ◽  
Michael Battistone ◽  
Kevin McMains ◽  
Kathrine McOwen ◽  
Catherine Witkop ◽  
...  

AbstractThe diagnostic error crisis suggests a shift in how we view clinical reasoning and may be vital for transforming how we view clinical encounters. Building upon the literature, we propose clinical reasoning and error are context-specific and proceed to advance a family of theories that represent a model outlining the complex interplay of physician, patient, and environmental factors driving clinical reasoning and error. These contemporary social cognitive theories (i.e. embedded cognition, ecological psychology, situated cognition, and distributed cognition) can emphasize the dynamic interactions occurring amongst participants in particular settings. The situational determinants that contribute to diagnostic error are also explored.


2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 7512510247p1-7512510247p1
Author(s):  
Jennifer Weaver ◽  
Trudy Mallinson ◽  
Leslie Davidson ◽  
Christina Papadimitriou ◽  
Ann Guernon ◽  
...  

Abstract Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations. This qualitative, observational research study explored treatment encounters between patients with disorders of consciousness, rehabilitation practitioners, and family to understand how treatment decisions occurred. The data showed shared decision making (SDM) occurring as a process, meaning that not all five principles of SDM occur in one clinical encounter but rather unfold across multiple clinical encounters. We delineate differences in SDM between rehabilitation and the medical model. Primary Author and Speaker: Jennifer Weaver Contributing Authors: Trudy Mallinson, Leslie Davidson, Christina Papadimitriou, Ann Guernon, and Philip van der Wees


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-123
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Ananda Pradnya Pramitha

This research aims to create an integrated promotional strategy to maintain relationships with tourists in kuta tourism area in the new normal era. The strategy was formed using a reference from Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM). Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) is a marketing activity that aims to find, establish and maintain relationships with customers. Data collection techniques are carried out through documentation, literature studies, observations and interviews. The sampling technique used is Purposive Sampling. The data obtained is analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis techniques. Based on the research that has been done formed several strategies that can be used to maintain good relationships with tourists or customers. The strategies are grouped into 4 categories. The four categories are trust, commitment, communication and problem handling. In these circumstances maintaining a relationship with a traveler or customer is very important. The right strategy is needed so that when the tourism gate has reopened, then tourists or customers will not be reluctant to come visit. Keywords : Promotion Strategy, CRM, Kuta Tourist Area, New Normal


Curationis ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Khanyile ◽  
F Mfidi

A comparative analysis was undertaken using descriptive and cross sectional survey design, to explore the effect of Problem Based Learning and Traditional approach on the development of clinical reasoning abilities of nursing students. Using quota sampling, a sample of 87 subjects was used from two University Nursing Departments, each using these curricula approaches. Students from their first, second and fourth year were interviewed, using the Triple Jump Exercise as an instrument to collect data. Data analysis using the SAS computer software package was employed to obtain both descriptive and statistical summarizations. Though descriptive analysis of the scores of clinical reasoning showed a slight difference between the two curricular approaches, this was not confirmed statistically as the two factor ANOVA and Tukey’s methods revealed no significant differences by approaches. The only significant difference was revealed between the students’ levels of study with senior levels (4th years) outperforming their juniors. These findings therefore conclude that, students using Problem Based Learning and Traditional approach perform on a similar level in clinical reasoning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document