Exploring the relationship between emotion and cognitive load types during patient handovers

How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees

PURPOSE

Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk.

METHOD

In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift.

RESULTS

Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting, and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.

Questions and Quandaries: How to respond to reviewer comments

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this first article, the authors address the question of how to respond to a request for revisions after review, including the quandary of how best to respond to conflicting feedback.

Patients!

In this editorial the Editor considers the roles and representations of patients in health professional education and their implications for educational scholarship in this field. She also considers the implications of patient presence and engagement for the social contract and the ways it is being placed under stress and strain.