A clinical reasoning curriculum for medical students: an interim analysis

Objectives Diagnostic error is a critical patient safety issue that can be addressed in part through teaching clinical reasoning. Medical schools with clinical reasoning curricula tend to emphasize general reasoning concepts (e.g., differential diagnosis generation). Few published curricula go beyond teaching the steps in the diagnostic process to address how students should structure their knowledge to optimize diagnostic performance in future clinical encounters or to discuss elements outside of individual cognition that are essential to diagnosis. Methods In 2016, the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine launched a clinical reasoning curriculum that simultaneously emphasizes reasoning concepts and intentional knowledge construction; the roles of patients, families, interprofessional colleagues; and communication in diagnosis. The curriculum features a longitudinal thread beginning in first year, with an immersive three week diagnostic reasoning (DR) course in the second year. Students evaluated the DR course. Additionally, we conducted an audit of the multiyear clinical reasoning curriculum using the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine-Macy Foundation interprofessional diagnostic education competencies. Results Students rated DR highly (range 4.13–4.18/5 between 2018 and 2020) and reported high self-efficacy with applying clinical reasoning concepts and communicating reasoning to supervisors. A course audit demonstrated a disproportionate emphasis on individual (cognitive) competencies with inadequate attention to systems and team factors in diagnosis. Conclusions Our clinical reasoning curriculum led to high student self-efficacy. However, we stressed cognitive aspects of reasoning with limited instruction on teams and systems. Diagnosis education should expand beyond the cognitive- and physician-centric focus of most published reasoning courses.

Diagnostic statements: a linguistic analysis of how clinicians communicate diagnosis

Objectives To investigate from a linguistic perspective how clinicians deliver diagnosis to patients, and how these statements relate to diagnostic accuracy. Methods To identify temporal and discursive features in diagnostic statements, we analysed 16 video-recorded interactions collected during a practice high-stakes exam for internationally trained clinicians (25% female, n=4) to gain accreditation to practice in Australia. We recorded time spent on history-taking, examination, diagnosis and management. We extracted and deductively analysed types of diagnostic statements informed by literature. Results Half of the participants arrived at the correct diagnosis, while the other half misdiagnosed the patient. On average, clinicians who made a diagnostic error took 30 s less in history-taking and 30 s more in providing diagnosis than clinicians with correct diagnosis. The majority of diagnostic statements were evidentialised (describing specific observations (n=24) or alluding to diagnostic processes (n=7)), personal knowledge or judgement (n=8), generalisations (n=6) and assertions (n=4). Clinicians who misdiagnosed provided more specific observations (n=14) than those who diagnosed correctly (n=9). Conclusions Interactions where there is a diagnostic error, had shorter history-taking periods, longer diagnostic statements and featured more evidence. Time spent on history-taking and diagnosis, and use of evidentialised diagnostic statements may be indicators for diagnostic accuracy.

Lessons in clinical reasoning ‒ pitfalls, myths and pearls: a case of recurrent pancreatitis

Objectives Cognitive biases can result in clinical reasoning failures that can lead to diagnostic errors. Autobrewery syndrome is a rare, but likely underdiagnosed, condition in which gut flora ferment glucose, producing ethanol. It most frequently presents with unexplained episodes of inebriation, though more case studies are necessary to better characterize the syndrome. Case presentation This is a case of a 41-year old male with a past medical history notable only for frequent sinus infections, who presented with recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis. In the week prior to his first episode of pancreatitis, he consumed four beers, an increase from his baseline of 1–2 drinks per month. At home, he had several episodes of confusion, which he attributed to fatigue. He underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and testing for genetic and autoimmune causes of pancreatitis, which were non-revealing. He was hospitalized 10 more times during that 9-month period for acute pancreatitis with elevated transaminases. During these admissions, he had elevated triglycerides requiring an insulin drip and elevated alcohol level despite abstaining from alcohol for the prior eight months. His alcohol level increased after consumption of complex carbohydrates, confirming the diagnosis of autobrewery syndrome. Conclusions Through integrated commentary on the diagnostic reasoning process, this case underscores how overconfidence can lead to premature closure and anchoring resulting in diagnostic error. Using a metacognitive overview, case discussants describe the importance of structured reflection and a standardized approach to early hypothesis generation to navigate these cognitive biases.

Emergency medicine physicians’ perspectives on diagnostic accuracy in neurology: a qualitative study

Objectives We sought to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of emergency medicine (EM) physicians towards non-specific neurological conditions and the use of clinical decision support (CDS) to improve diagnostic accuracy. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews of EM physicians at four emergency departments (EDs) affiliated with a single US healthcare system. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Conventional content analysis was used to identify themes related to EM physicians’ perspectives on acute diagnostic neurology; directed content analysis was used to explore views regarding CDS. Each interview transcript was independently coded by two researchers using an iteratively refined codebook with consensus-based resolution of coding differences. Results We identified two domains regarding diagnostic safety: (1) challenges unique to neurological complaints and (2) challenges in EM more broadly. Themes relevant to neurology included: (1) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (2) skepticism about neurology, (3) comfort with basic as opposed to detailed neurological examination, and (4) comfort with non-neurological diseases. Themes relevant to diagnostic decision making in the ED included: (1) cognitive biases, (2) ED system/environmental issues, (3) patient barriers, (4) comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, and (5) concerns regarding diagnostic error identification and measurement. Most participating EM physicians were enthusiastic about the potential for well-designed CDS to improve diagnostic accuracy for non-specific neurological complaints. Conclusions Physicians identified diagnostic challenges unique to neurological diseases as well as issues related more generally to diagnostic accuracy in EM. These physician-reported issues should be accounted for when designing interventions to improve ED diagnostic accuracy.