Search

Objectives Management reasoning has not been widely explored but likely requires broader abilities than diagnostic reasoning. An enhanced understanding of management reasoning could improve medical education and patient care. We conducted a novel exploratory study to gain further insights into procedure-based management reasoning. Methods Participant physicians managed a simulated patient who acutely decompensates in a team-based, time-pressured, live scenario. Immediately following the scenario, physicians perform a think-aloud protocol by watching video recordings of their performance and narrating their reflections in real-time. Verbatim transcripts of the think-aloud protocol were inductively coded using a constant comparative method and evaluated for themes. Results We recruited 19 physicians (15 internal medicine, one family medicine, and three general surgery) for this study. Recognizing that diagnostic and management reasoning intertwine, this paper focuses on management reasoning’s characteristics. We developed three categories of management reasoning factors with eight subthemes. These are Patient factors: Acuity and Preferences; Physician factors: Recognized Errors, Anxiety, Metacognition, Monitoring, and Threshold to Treat; and one Environment factor: Resources. Conclusions Our findings on procedure-based management reasoning are consistent with Situation Awareness and Situated Cognition models and the extant work on management reasoning, demonstrating that management is inherently complex and contextually bound. Unique to this study, all physicians focused on prognosis, indicating that attaining competency in procedural management may require planning and prediction abilities. Physicians also expressed concerns about making mistakes, potentially resulting from the scenario’s emphasis on a procedure and our physicians’ having less expertise in the treatment of tension pneumothorax.

Introduction While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. Discussion This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

Context Health professions education (HPE) has increasingly turned to qualitative methodology to address a number of the field's difficult research problems. While several different methodologies have been widely accepted and used in HPE research (e.g., Grounded Theory), others remain largely unknown. In this methodology paper, we discuss the value of narrative analysis (NA) as a set of analytic approaches that offer several lenses that can support HPE scholars' research. Methods After briefly discussing the 'narrative turn' in research, we highlight five NA lenses: holistic, situated, linguistic, agentive and sequential. We explore what each lens can offer HPE scholars-highlighting certain aspects of the data-and how each lens is limited-obscuring other aspects. To support these observations, we offer an example of each lens from contemporary HPE scholarship. The manuscript also describes methods that can be employed in NA research and offers two different typologies of NA methods that can be used to access these lenses. Conclusions We conclude with a discussion of how different analytic methods can be used to harness each of the lenses. We urge the deliberate selection and use of NA methods and point to the inherent partiality of any NA approach. Reflecting on our position as narrative scholars, we acknowledge how our own lenses illuminate some areas and conceal others as we tell the story of NA. In conclusion, we invite other researchers to benefit from the potential NA promises.

Background Situated cognition theory argues that thinking is inextricably situated in a context. In clinical reasoning, this can lead to context specificity: a physician arriving at two different diagnoses for two patients with the same symptoms, findings, and diagnosis but different contextual factors (something beyond case content potentially influencing reasoning). This paper experimentally investigates the presence of and mechanisms behind context specificity by measuring differences in clinical reasoning performance in cases with and without contextual factors. Methods An experimental study was conducted in 2018–2019 with 39 resident and attending physicians in internal medicine. Participants viewed two outpatient clinic video cases (unstable angina and diabetes mellitus), one with distracting contextual factors and one without. After viewing each case, participants responded to six open-ended diagnostic items (e.g. problem list, leading diagnosis) and rated their cognitive load. Results Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results revealed significant differences in angina case performance with and without contextual factors [Pillai’s trace = 0.72, F = 12.4, df =(6, 29), p 0.001, η p 2 = 0.72 $\eta _{\rm p}^2 = 0.72$ ], with follow-up univariate analyses indicating that participants performed statistically significantly worse in cases with contextual factors on five of six items. There were no significant differences in diabetes cases between conditions. There was no statistically significant difference in cognitive load between conditions. Conclusions Using typical presentations of common diagnoses, and contextual factors typical for clinical practice, we provide ecologically valid evidence for the theoretically predicted negative effects of context specificity (i.e. for the angina case), with large effect sizes, offering insight into the persistence of diagnostic error.

Background The 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). Methods In 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. Results As 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. Conclusions This 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.

Health professions education (HPE) research often involves examining complex phenomena. Theory provides a means for better understanding the mechanics of these phenomena and guiding health professions researchers and educators as they navigate the practical implications for teaching, learning, and research. Engaging with educational theory is, therefore, critical to facilitating this understanding. However, this engagement presents a key challenge for HPE researchers and educators without a background in social science. This article outlines 5 key principles of engaging with theory and offers integration strategies to assist HPE researchers and educators who wish to apply theory to their HPE scholarship and practice. The article concludes with a practical example of how these principles were applied to an HPE research project, demonstrating the value of theory in enhancing research quality. Existing theories can facilitate opportunities for individual researchers to better understand complex phenomena while simultaneously moving forward the field of HPE.

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.

To be safe and effective practitioners and learners, medical professionals must be able to accurately assess their own performance to know when they need additional help. This study explored the metacognitive judgments of 157 first-year medical students; in particular, the study examined students’ self-assessments or calibration as they engaged in a virtual-patient simulation targeting clinical reasoning practices. Examining two key subtasks of a patient encounter, history (Hx) and physical exam (PE), the authors assessed the level of variation in students’ behavioral performance (i.e., effectiveness and efficiency) and judgments of performance (i.e., calibration bias and accuracy) across the two subtasks. Paired t tests revealed that the Hx subtask was deemed to be more challenging than the PE subtask when viewed in terms of both actual and perceived performance. In addition to students performing worse on the Hx subtask than PE, they also perceived that they performed less well for Hx. Interestingly, across both subtasks, the majority of participants overestimated their performance (98% of participants for Hx and 95% for PE). Correlation analyses revealed that the participants’ overall level of accuracy in metacognitive judgments was moderately stable across the Hx and PE subtasks. Taken together, findings underscore the importance of assessing medical students’ metacognitive judgments at different points during a clinical encounter.

None

Systemic problems of discrimination plague diversity and inclusion efforts in medical education globally. Medical educators need to acknowledge that learners are dealing with considerable emotional and perhaps social and economic stress and that this stress is likely worse for minoritized learners. In this milieu, what is the role of the medical educator? This article takes an inclusive approach to supporting students and explores various threads in the medical education literature to provide a roadmap for medical educators. This article traces the medical educator's journey with (1) understanding why medical students need educators to intervene, (2) exploring how to create a space for dialog, and (3) beginning the conversation with medical students. It ends with a series of concrete suggestions for medical educators.

Introduction Medical school leaders are seeking strategies to increase the diversity of their student populations. Post-baccalaureate premedical (PBPM) programs are one such pipeline that has supported diversity in medicine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Uniformed Services University’s (USU’s) PBPM program (the Enlisted to Medical Degree Preparatory Program, EMDP2) to determine how well it prepares its learners for the School of Medicine (SOM). Materials and Methods The National Board of Medical Examiners Clinical Science Subject Examination scores of EMDP2 learners from the SOM classes of 2020–2023 were compared to those of four similarly sized cohorts of their peers that varied by age and prior military service. Results We found that the performance of program graduates was comparable to their peers who followed more traditional and other alternative preparatory paths. Conclusions The EMDP2 appears to prepare medical students on a par with their non-EMDP2 peers. The EMDP2 contributes to USU’s commitment to train physicians who represent the nation and its citizens by making medical education available to enlisted service members, a population that closely mirrors the diversity of the nation.

We encourage GME educators to become better acquainted with educational theory. Doing so will make clear the value of theory, especially in situations where content knowledge, frequent practice, and innate teaching ability appear to fall short. It is during those times that educational theory can help to organize and illuminate educational practice. It is during those times that there is nothing as practical as a good theory.1

ObjectivesDiagnostic error is a growing concern in U.S. healthcare. There is mounting evidence that errors may not always be due to knowledge gaps, but also tocontext specificity: a physician seeing two identical patient presentations from a content perspective (e.g., history, labs) yet arriving at two distinct diagnoses. This study used the lens of situated cognition theory – which views clinical reasoning as interconnected with surrounding contextual factors – to design and test an instructional module to mitigate the negative effects of context specificity. We hypothesized that experimental participants would perform better on the outcome measure than those in the control group.MethodsThis study divided 39 resident and attending physicians into an experimental group receiving an interactive computer training and “think-aloud” exercise and a control group, comparing their clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning performance in a simulated unstable angina case with contextual factors (i.e., diagnostic suggestion) was determined using performance on a post-encounter form (PEF) as the outcome measure. The participants who received the training and did the reflection were compared to those who did not using descriptive statistics and a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).ResultsDescriptive statistics suggested slightly better performance for the experimental group, but MANCOVA results revealed no statistically significant differences (Pillai’s Trace=0.20, F=1.9,df=[4, 29], p=0.15).ConclusionsWhile differences were not statistically significant, this study suggests the potential utility of strategies that provide education and awareness of contextual factors and space for reflective practice.

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.

The 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.

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.

Introduction There is a need for educational resources supporting the practice and assessment of the complex processes of clinical reasoning in the inpatient setting along a continuum of physician experience levels. Methods Using participatory design, we created a scenario-based simulation integrating diagnostic ambiguity, contextual factors, and rising patient acuity to increase complexity. Resources include an open-ended written exercise and think-aloud reflection protocol to elicit diagnostic and management reasoning and reflection on that reasoning. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the initial implementation evaluation results. Results Twenty physicians from multiple training stages and specialties (interns, residents, attendings, family physicians, internists, surgeons) underwent the simulated scenario. Participants engaged in clinical reasoning processes consistent with the design, considering a total of 19 differential diagnoses. Ten participants provided the correct leading diagnosis, tension pneumothorax, with an additional eight providing pneumothorax and all participants offering relevant supporting evidence. There was also good evidence of management reasoning, with all participants either performing an intervention or calling for assistance and reflecting on management plans in the think-aloud. The scenario was a reasonable approximation of clinical practice, with a mean authenticity rating of 4.15 out of 5. Finally, the scenario presented adequate challenge, with interns and residents rating it as only slightly more challenging (means of 7.83 and 7.17, respectively) than attendings (mean of 6.63 out of 10). Discussion Despite the challenges of scenario complexity, evaluation results indicate that this resource supports the observation and analysis of diagnostic and management reasoning of diverse specialties from interns through attendings.

Context Language is one of the primary modalities for teaching and learning in the health professions in contexts ranging from the more formal teaching relationships of medical school to the guided practice of trainees through continuing education and the deliberate practice of lifelong learning. Yet linguistic analysis, with the possible exception of discourse analysis, has not become a core methodological tool in the field of health professions education (HPE). The purpose of this paper is to argue for the more widespread adoption of one particular approach to linguistics, one that examines less of what learners and instructors say and looks more at how they say it: functional linguistics. Functional linguistics THE POWER OF 'STEALTH WORDS': This approach theorises and structures the functions of language, regularly focusing attention on 'stealth words' such as I, but and was. Drawing on a rich body of literature in linguistics, psychology, the learning sciences and some early work in HPE, we demonstrate how functional linguistic tools can be applied to better understand learners' and instructors' beliefs, reasoning processes, values and emotions. Functional linguistics and reflection AN APPLICATION OF STEALTH WORDS: A brief qualitative analysis of one tool - analysis of the generic use of 'you' to mean 'one' or 'anyone' - demonstrates how functional linguistics can offer insight into physicians' bids for credibility and alignment as they think aloud about their clinical reasoning. Functional linguistics and hpe FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Finally, we offer suggestions for how functional linguistic tools might address questions and gaps in four active research areas in HPE: reflection; emotion and reasoning; learning in simulated contexts, and self-regulated learning. Conclusions We argue that the words used by learners, instructors and practitioners in the health professions as they move through undergraduate and graduate training into practice can offer clues that will help researchers, instructors and colleagues to better support them.

Introduction We describe the development and implementation of tools medical educators or researchers can use for developing or analyzing residents' through attending physicians' clinical reasoning in an outpatient clinic setting. The resource includes two scenario-based simulations (i.e., diabetes, angina), implementation support materials, an open-ended postencounter form, and a think-aloud reflection protocol. Method We designed two scenarios with potential case ambiguity and contextual factors to add complexity for studying clinical reasoning. The scenarios are designed to be used prior to an open-ended written exercise and a think-aloud reflection to elicit reasoning and reflection. We report on their implementation in a research context but developed them to be used in both educational and research settings. Results Twelve physicians (five interns, three residents, and four attendings) considered between three and six differential diagnoses (M = 4.0) for the diabetes scenario and between three and nine differentials (M = 4.3) for angina. In think-aloud reflections, participants reconsidered their thinking between zero and 14 times (M = 3.5) for diabetes and zero and 11 times (M = 3.3) for angina. Cognitive load scores ranged from 4 to 8 (out of 10; M = 6.2) for diabetes and 5 to 8 (M = 6.6) for angina. Participants rated scenario authenticity between 4 and 5 (out of 5). Discussion The potential case content ambiguity, along with the contextual factors (e.g., patient suggesting alternative diagnoses), provides a complex environment in which to explore or teach clinical reasoning.