Dual Process Theory and Cognitive Load: How Intensivists Make Diagnoses

Academic hospitalist perspectives on the benefits and challenges of secure messaging: A mixed methods analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and patients rely on effective clinician communication. Asynchronous electronic secure messaging (SM) systems are a common way for hospitalists to communicate, but few studies have evaluated how hospitalists are navigating the adoption of SM and the benefits and challenges they are encountering.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess academic hospitalist perspectives on SM to guide future research and quality improvement initiatives.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study utilizing an embedded REDCap survey and six virtual semistructured focus groups. It took place during a Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network Zoom meeting on October 13, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods were used to define major themes.

RESULTS

There were 28 hospitalists and one patient representative across 24 separate academic institutions. There was a 71% survey completion rate (N = 20). SM was felt to be an effective and efficient communication modality but was associated with a large amount of multitasking and interruptions. Perspectives around SM clustered around three main themes: SM has been widely but variably adopted; there is a lack of institutional guidance about how to best engage with SM; and SM is changing the landscape of hospitalist work by increasing ease but decreasing depth of communication, increasing cognitive load, and changing interpersonal relationships. Recommendations for SM improvements included the need for institutions to work with frontline workers to develop and implement clear usage guidelines.

CONCLUSION

SM is likely contributing to both positive and negative effects for clinicians and patients. Understanding hospitalist perspectives on SM will help guide future research and quality improvement initiatives.

Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Physiologic measurements of cognitive load in clinical reasoning

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive load is postulated to be a significant factor in clinical reasoning performance. Monitoring physiologic measures, such as heart rate variability (HRV) may serve as a way to monitor changes in cognitive load. The pathophysiology of why HRV has a relationship to cognitive load is unclear, but it may be related to blood pressure changes that occur in a response to mental stress.

METHODS

Fourteen residents and ten attendings from Internal Medicine wore Holter monitors and watched a video depicting a medical encounter before completing a post encounter form used to evaluate their clinical reasoning and standard psychometric measures of cognitive load. Blood pressure was obtained before and after the encounter. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between HRV, blood pressure, self-reported cognitive load measures, clinical reasoning performance scores, and experience level.

RESULTS

Strong positive correlations were found between increasing HRV and increasing mean arterial pressure (MAP) (p=0.01, Cohen's d=1.41). There was a strong positive correlation with increasing MAP and increasing cognitive load (Pearson correlation 0.763; 95 % CI [; 95 % CI [-0.364, 0.983]). Clinical reasoning performance was negatively correlated with increasing MAP (Pearson correlation -0.446; 95 % CI [-0.720, -0.052]). Subjects with increased HRV, MAP and cognitive load were more likely to be a resident (Pearson correlation -0.845; 95 % CI [-0.990, 0.147]).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating HRV and MAP can help us to understand cognitive load and its implications on trainee and physician clinical reasoning performance, with the intent to utilize this information to improve patient care.

Twelve tips for physicians’ mastering expertise in diagnostic excellence

Diagnostic errors, which account for a large proportion of medical errors, are a global medical challenge. The slogan of reducing diagnostic errors has recently shifted to a new strategy of diagnostic excellence, the core of which is the importance of improving the multidisciplinary diagnostic process. Many of the elements and strategies necessary for diagnostic excellence have been presented. In the context of this diagnostic improvement, some reports have been structured to improve the quality of performance of individual physicians as players. Still, surprisingly, only a few reports have focused on specific day-to-day training strategies for the diagnostic thinking process as expertise. This paper focuses on this point and proposes strategies for refining the diagnostic thinking expertise of frontline physicians in the new era, based on the following four elements: knowledge and experience, diagnostic thinking strategies, information management skills, and calibration and reflection.