Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking

Hickam's Dictum: An Analysis of Multiple Diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Hickam's dictum ("a patient can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases") has been touted as a counterargument to Ockham's razor, which enjoins clinicians to seek a single, simple, or unifying diagnosis. Yet the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses has not been formally analyzed.

METHODS

We evaluated multiple diagnoses using three methods of inquiry: (1) a review of 83 case reports; (2) a review of 220 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine; and (3) an online survey of providers' intuitions.

RESULTS

Eighty-three published case reports claimed to instantiate Hickam's dictum or violate Ockham's razor. All reported a primary diagnosis that explained the presenting illness, and one or more additional diagnoses which could be classified into four categories: (1) an incidentaloma (n = 21; 25.3%); (2) a pre-existing disease (n = 26; 31.3%); (3) a disease causally linked to the primary diagnosis (n = 33, 39.8%); and (4) a causally unrelated second disease contributing to the acute presentation (n = 3, 3.6%). Among 220 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine, all reported a unifying final diagnosis. In an online survey, 265 respondents recruited using social media evaluated four hypothetical cases with multiple diagnoses representing this categorization scheme. A majority of respondents (79%; 95% CI, 74-84%) chose the case representing category 4 - a coincident, causally unrelated second diagnosis - as the most unlikely or surprising diagnostic combination.

CONCLUSION

Multiple diagnoses commonly occur. However, the majority of the multiple diagnoses we analyzed were causally linked, or represented incidentalomas or known pre-existing diseases. These diagnostic combinations were unsurprising to a majority of surveyed providers. We show that multiple diagnoses can be arranged in a framework that considers time, probability, and causation. This framework reconciles the alleged conflict between Hickam's dictum and Ockham's razor and has greater practical and pedagogical utility.

Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis in emergency medicine (EM) is high stakes and challenging. Research into physicians' clinical reasoning has been ongoing since the late 1970s. The dual-process theory has established itself as a valid model, including in EM. It is based on the distinction between two information-processing systems. System 1 rapidly generates one or more diagnostic hypotheses almost instantaneously, driven by experiential knowledge, while System 2 proceeds more slowly and analytically, applying formal rules to arrive at a final diagnosis.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on dual-process theory in the fields of cognitive science, medical education and emergency medicine.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature reflects two prominent interpretations regarding the relationship between the fast and slow phases and these interpretations carry very different implications for the training of clinical learners. One interpretation, prominent in the EM community, presents it as a "check-and-balance" framework in which most diagnostic error is caused by cognitive biases originating within System 1. As a result, EM residents are frequently advised to deploy analytical (System 2) strategies to correct such biases. However, such teaching approaches are not supported by research into the nature of diagnostic reasoning. An alternative interpretation assumes a harmonious relationship between Systems 1 and 2 in which both fast and slow processes are driven by underlying knowledge that conditions performance and the occurrence of errors. Educational strategies corresponding to this alternative have not been explored in the EM literature. In this paper, we offer proposals for improving the teaching and learning of diagnostic reasoning by EM residents.

Qualitative study of new doctor induction and socialisation

AIM

Junior doctors joining EDs are required to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills, but there is little research describing how this process can be facilitated. We aimed to understand what would make ED formal induction and early socialisation more effective.

METHODS

Qualitative study; informal interviews of junior doctors, consultants and nursing staff and direct observation of clinical interactions, induction and training in a single ED in an English Emergency Department between August and October 2019. We used constant comparison to identify and develop themes.

FINDINGS

New junior doctors identified that early socialisation should facilitate patient safety and a safe learning space, with much of this process dependent on consultant interactions rather than formal induction. Clear themes around helpful and unhelpful consultant support and supervision were identified. Consultants who acknowledged their own fallibility and maintained approachability produced a safe learning environment, while consultants who lacked interest in their juniors, publicly humiliated them or disregarded the junior doctors' suggestions were seen as unhelpful and unconstructive.

CONCLUSION

Effective socialisation, consistent with previous literature, was identified as critical. Junior doctors see consultant behaviours and interactions as key to creating a safe learning space.

Role of knowledge and reasoning processes as predictors of resident physicians' susceptibility to anchoring bias in diagnostic reasoning: a randomised controlled experiment

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors have been attributed to reasoning flaws caused by cognitive biases. While experiments have shown bias to cause errors, physicians of similar expertise differed in susceptibility to bias. Resisting bias is often said to depend on engaging analytical reasoning, disregarding the influence of knowledge. We examined the role of knowledge and reasoning mode, indicated by diagnosis time and confidence, as predictors of susceptibility to anchoring bias. Anchoring bias occurs when physicians stick to an incorrect diagnosis triggered by early salient distracting features (SDF) despite subsequent conflicting information.

METHODS

Sixty-eight internal medicine residents from two Dutch university hospitals participated in a two-phase experiment. Phase 1: assessment of knowledge of discriminating features (ie, clinical findings that discriminate between lookalike diseases) for six diseases. Phase 2 (1 week later): diagnosis of six cases of these diseases. Each case had two versions differing exclusively in the presence/absence of SDF. Each participant diagnosed three cases with SDF (SDF+) and three without (SDF-). Participants were randomly allocated to case versions. Based on phase 1 assessment, participants were split into higher knowledge or lower knowledge groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

frequency of diagnoses associated with SDF; time to diagnose; and confidence in diagnosis.

RESULTS

While both knowledge groups performed similarly on SDF- cases, higher knowledge physicians succumbed to anchoring bias less frequently than their lower knowledge counterparts on SDF+ cases (p=0.02). Overall, physicians spent more time (p<0.001) and had lower confidence (p=0.02) on SDF+ than SDF- cases (p<0.001). However, when diagnosing SDF+ cases, the groups did not differ in time (p=0.88) nor in confidence (p=0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians apparently adopted a more analytical reasoning approach when presented with distracting features, indicated by increased time and lower confidence, trying to combat bias. Yet, extended deliberation alone did not explain the observed performance differences between knowledge groups. Success in mitigating anchoring bias was primarily predicted by knowledge of discriminating features of diagnoses.

Clinical reasoning during dysphagia assessment and management in acute care: A longitudinal qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Competent clinical reasoning forms the foundation for effective and efficient clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and consequent dysphagia management decisions. While the nature of initial CSEs has been evaluated, it remains unclear how new information gathered by speech-language therapists (SLTs) throughout a patient's acute-care journey is integrated into their initial clinical reasoning and management processes and used to review and revise initial management recommendations.

AIMS

To understand how SLTs' clinical reasoning and decision-making regarding dysphagia assessment and management evolve as patients transition through acute hospital care from referral to discharge.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A longitudinal, qualitative approach was employed to gather information from two SLTs who managed six patients at a metropolitan acute-care hospital. A retrospective 'think-aloud' protocol was utilized to prompt SLTs regarding their clinical reasoning and decision-making processes during initial and subsequent CSEs and patient interactions. Three types of concept maps were created based on these interviews: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. All concept maps were evaluated regarding their overall structure, facts gathered, types of reasoning engaged in (inductive versus deductive), types of hypotheses generated, and the diagnosis and management recommendations made following initial CSE and during subsequent dysphagia management.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Initial CSEs involved a rich process of fact-gathering, that was predominantly led by inductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) and some application of deductive reasoning (hypothesis testing), with the primary aims of determining the presence of dysphagia and identifying the safest diet and fluid recommendations. During follow-up assessments, SLTs engaged in increasingly more deductive testing of initial hypotheses, including fact-gathering aimed at determining the tolerance of current diet and fluid recommendations or the suitability for diet and/or fluid upgrade and less inductive reasoning. Consistent with this aim, SLTs' hypotheses were focused primarily on airway protection and medical status during the follow-up phase. Overall, both initial and follow-up swallowing assessments were targeted primarily at identifying suitable management recommendations, and less so on identifying and formulating diagnoses. None of the patients presented with adverse respiratory and/or swallowing outcomes during admission and following discharge from speech pathology.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Swallowing assessment and management across the acute-care journey was observed as a high-quality, patient-centred process characterized by iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning. This approach appears to maximize efficiency without compromising the quality of care. The outcomes of this research encourage further investigation and translation to tertiary and post-professional education contexts as a clear understanding of the processes involved in reaching diagnoses and management recommendations can inform career-long refinement of clinical skills.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject SLTs' clinical reasoning processes during initial CSE employ iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning, reflecting a patient-centred assessment process. To date it is unknown how SLTs engage in clinical reasoning during follow-up assessments of swallowing function, how they assess the appropriateness of initial management recommendations and how this relates to patient outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge Our longitudinal evaluation of clinical reasoning and decision-making patterns related to swallowing management in acute care demonstrated that SLTs tailored their processes to each patient's presentation. There was an emphasis on monitoring the suitability of the initial management recommendations and the potential for upgrade of diet or compensatory swallowing strategies. The iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning reflect efficient decision-making processes that maintain high-quality clinical care within the acute environment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Employing efficient and high-quality clinical reasoning is a hallmark of good dysphagia practice in maximizing positive patient outcomes. Developing approaches to understanding and making explicit clinical reasoning processes of experienced clinicians may assist SLTs of all developmental stages to provide high standards of care.

Reflexive control in emergency medicine

Emergency physicians (EPs) navigate high-pressure environments, making rapid decisions amidst ambiguity. Their choices are informed by a complex interplay of experience, information, and external forces. While cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) expedite assessments, there are multiple ways they can be subtly manipulated, potentially leading to reflexive control: external actors steering EPs' decisions for their own benefit. Pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and media narratives are among the numerous factors that influence the EPs' information landscape. Using tactics such as selective data dissemination, framing, and financial incentives, these actors can exploit pre-existing cognitive biases like anchoring, confirmation, and availability. This creates fertile ground for reflexive control, where EPs may believe they are acting independently while unknowingly serving the goals of external influencers. The consequences of manipulated decision making can be severe: misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and increased healthcare costs. Ethical dilemmas arise when external pressures conflict with patient well-being. Recognizing these dangers empowers EPs to resist reflexive control through (1) critical thinking: examining information for potential biases and prioritizing evidence-based practices, (2) continuous education: learning about cognitive biases and mitigation strategies, and (3) institutional policies: implementing regulations to reduce external influence and to promote transparency. This vulnerability of emergency medicine decision making highlights the need for awareness, education, and robust ethical frameworks. Understanding reflexive control techniques is crucial for safeguarding patient care and promoting independent, ethical decision making in emergency medicine.

Spectrum of Cognitive Biases in Diagnostic Radiology

Cognitive biases are systematic thought processes involving the use of a filter of personal experiences and preferences arising from the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing, especially when taking in vast amounts of data such as from imaging studies. These biases encompass a wide spectrum of thought processes and frequently overlap in their concepts, with multiple biases usually in operation when interpretive and perceptual errors occur in radiology. The authors review the gamut of cognitive biases that occur in radiology. These biases are organized according to their expected stage of occurrence while the radiologist reads and interprets an imaging study. In addition, the authors propose several additional cognitive biases that have not yet, to their knowledge, been defined in the radiologic literature but are applicable to diagnostic radiology. Case examples are used to illustrate potential biases and their impact, with emergency radiology serving as the clinical paradigm, given the associated high imaging volumes, wide diversity of imaging examinations, and rapid pace, which can further increase a radiologist's reliance on biases and heuristics. Potential strategies to recognize and overcome one's personal biases at each stage of image interpretation are also discussed. Awareness of such biases and their unintended effects on imaging interpretations and patient outcomes may help make radiologists cognizant of their own biases that can result in diagnostic errors. Identification of cognitive bias in departmental and systematic quality improvement practices may represent another tool to prevent diagnostic errors in radiology. ©RSNA, 2024 See the invited commentary by Larson in this issue.

Beyond thinking fast and slow: Implications of a transtheoretical model of clinical reasoning and error on teaching, assessment, and research

From dual process to a family of theories known collectively as situativity, both micro and macro theories of cognition inform our current understanding of clinical reasoning (CR) and error. CR is a complex process that occurs in a complex environment, and a nuanced, expansive, integrated model of these theories is necessary to fully understand how CR is performed in the present day and in the future. In this perspective, we present these individual theories along with figures and descriptive cases for purposes of comparison before exploring the implications of a transtheoretical model of these theories for teaching, assessment, and research in CR and error.

Evaluating the clinical utility of artificial intelligence assistance and its explanation on the glioma grading task

Clinical evaluation evidence and model explainability are key gatekeepers to ensure the safe, accountable, and effective use of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical settings. We conducted a clinical user-centered evaluation with 35 neurosurgeons to assess the utility of AI assistance and its explanation on the glioma grading task. Each participant read 25 brain MRI scans of patients with gliomas, and gave their judgment on the glioma grading without and with the assistance of AI prediction and explanation. The AI model was trained on the BraTS dataset with 88.0% accuracy. The AI explanation was generated using the explainable AI algorithm of SmoothGrad, which was selected from 16 algorithms based on the criterion of being truthful to the AI decision process. Results showed that compared to the average accuracy of 82.5±8.7% when physicians performed the task alone, physicians' task performance increased to 87.7±7.3% with statistical significance (p-value = 0.002) when assisted by AI prediction, and remained at almost the same level of 88.5±7.0% (p-value = 0.35) with the additional assistance of AI explanation. Based on quantitative and qualitative results, the observed improvement in physicians' task performance assisted by AI prediction was mainly because physicians' decision patterns converged to be similar to AI, as physicians only switched their decisions when disagreeing with AI. The insignificant change in physicians' performance with the additional assistance of AI explanation was because the AI explanations did not provide explicit reasons, contexts, or descriptions of clinical features to help doctors discern potentially incorrect AI predictions. The evaluation showed the clinical utility of AI to assist physicians on the glioma grading task, and identified the limitations and clinical usage gaps of existing explainable AI techniques for future improvement.

Investigating the impact of cognitive biases in radiologists' image interpretation: A scoping review

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Image interpretation is a fundamental aspect of radiology. The treatment and management of patients relies on accurate and timely imaging diagnosis. However, errors in radiological reports can negatively impact on patient health outcomes. These misdiagnoses can be caused by several different errors, but cognitive biases account for 74 % of all image interpretation errors. There are many biases that can impact on a radiologist's perception and cognitive processes. Several recent narrative reviews have discussed these cognitive biases and have offered possible strategies to mitigate their effects. However, these strategies remain untested. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the current knowledge on the extent that cognitive biases impact on medical image interpretation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Scopus and Medline Databases were searched using relevant keywords to identify papers published between 2012 and 2022. A subsequent hand search of the narrative reviews was also performed. All studies collected were screened and assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications were included and categorised into five main themes: satisfaction of search, availability bias, hindsight bias, framing bias and other biases. From these studies, there were mixed results regarding the impact of cognitive biases, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area. Moreover, the limited and untested debiasing methods offered by a minority of the publications and narrative reviews also suggests the need for further research. The potential of role of artificial intelligence is also highlighted to further assist radiologists in identifying and mitigating these cognitive biases.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive biases can impact radiologists' image interpretation, however the effectiveness of debiasing strategies remain largely untested.

Errors in clinical diagnosis: a narrative review

Diagnostic errors are often caused by cognitive biases and sometimes by other cognitive errors, which are driven by factors specific to clinicians, patients, diseases, and health care systems. An experienced clinician diagnoses routine cases intuitively, effortlessly, and automatically through non-analytic reasoning and uses deliberate, cognitively effortful analytic reasoning to diagnose atypical or complicated clinical cases. However, diagnostic errors can never be completely avoided. To minimize the frequency of diagnostic errors, it is advisable to rely on multiple sources of information including the clinician's personal experience, expert opinion, principals of statistics, evidence-based data, and well-designed algorithms and guidelines, if available. It is also important to frequently engage in thoughtful, reflective, and metacognitive practices that can serve to strengthen the clinician's diagnostic skills, with a consequent reduction in the risk of diagnostic error. The purpose of this narrative review was to highlight certain factors that influence the genesis of diagnostic errors. Understanding the dynamic, adaptive, and complex interactions among these factors may assist clinicians, managers of health care systems, and public health policy makers in formulating strategies and guidelines aimed at reducing the incidence and prevalence of the phenomenon of clinical diagnostic error, which poses a public health hazard.

Impact of diagnostic checklists on the interpretation of normal and abnormal electrocardiograms

OBJECTIVES

Checklists that aim to support clinicians' diagnostic reasoning processes are often recommended to prevent diagnostic errors. Evidence on checklist effectiveness is mixed and seems to depend on checklist type, case difficulty, and participants' expertise. Existing studies primarily use abnormal cases, leaving it unclear how the diagnosis of normal cases is affected by checklist use. We investigated how content-specific and debiasing checklists impacted performance for normal and abnormal cases in electrocardiogram (ECG) diagnosis.

METHODS

In this randomized experiment, 42 first year general practice residents interpreted normal, simple abnormal, and complex abnormal ECGs without a checklist. One week later, they were randomly assigned to diagnose the ECGs again with either a debiasing or content-specific checklist. We measured residents' diagnostic accuracy, confidence, patient management, and time taken to diagnose. Additionally, confidence-accuracy calibration was assessed.

RESULTS

Accuracy, confidence, and patient management were not significantly affected by checklist use. Time to diagnose decreased with a checklist (M=147s (77)) compared to without a checklist (M=189s (80), Z=-3.10, p=0.002). Additionally, residents' calibration improved when using a checklist (phase 1: R2=0.14, phase 2: R2=0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In both normal and abnormal cases, checklist use improved confidence-accuracy calibration, though accuracy and confidence were not significantly affected. Time to diagnose was reduced. Future research should evaluate this effect in more experienced GPs. Checklists appear promising for reducing overconfidence without negatively impacting normal or simple ECGs. Reducing overconfidence has the potential to improve diagnostic performance in the long term.

Difficult diagnosis in the ICU: making the right call but beware uncertainty and bias

Dealing with an uncertain or missed diagnosis is commonplace in the intensive care unit setting. Affected patients are subject to a potential decrease in quality of care and a greater risk of a poor outcome. The diagnostic process is a complex task that starts with information gathering, followed by integration and interpretation of data, hypothesis generation and, finally, confirmation of a (hopefully correct) diagnosis. This may be particularly challenging in the patient who is critically ill where a good history may not be forthcoming and/or clinical, laboratory and imaging features are non-specific. The aim of this narrative review is to analyse and describe common causes of diagnostic error in the intensive care unit, highlighting the multiple types of cognitive bias, and to suggest a diagnostic framework. To inform this review, we performed a literature search to identify relevant articles, particularly those pertinent to unclear diagnoses in patients who are critically ill. Clinicians should be cognisant as to how they formulate diagnoses and utilise debiasing strategies. Multidisciplinary teamwork and more time spent with the patient, supported by effective and efficient use of electronic healthcare records and decision support resources, is likely to improve the quality of the diagnostic process, patient care and outcomes.

Teaching the science of uncertainty

As we increasingly acknowledge the ubiquitous nature of uncertainty in clinical practice (Meyer AN, Giardina TD, Khawaja L, Singh H. Patient and clinician experiences of uncertainty in the diagnostic process: current understanding and future directions. Patient Educ Counsel 2021;104:2606-15; Han PK, Klein WM, Arora NK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making 2011;31:828-38) and strive to better define this entity (Lee C, Hall K, Anakin M, Pinnock R. Towards a new understanding of uncertainty in medical education. J Eval Clin Pract 2020; Bhise V, Rajan SS, Sittig DF, Morgan RO, Chaudhary P, Singh H. Defining and measuring diagnostic uncertainty in medicine: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33:103-15), as educators we should also design, implement, and evaluate curricula addressing clinical uncertainty. Although frequently encountered, uncertainty is often implicitly referred to rather than explicitly discussed (Gärtner J, Berberat PO, Kadmon M, Harendza S. Implicit expression of uncertainty - suggestion of an empirically derived framework. BMC Med Educ 2020;20:83). Increasing explicit discussion of - and comfort with -uncertainty has the potential to improve diagnostic reasoning and accuracy and improve patient care (Dunlop M, Schwartzstein RM. Reducing diagnostic error in the intensive care unit. Engaging. Uncertainty when teaching clinical reasoning. Scholar;1:364-71). Discussion of both diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty with patients is central to shared decision-making in many contexts as well, (Simpkin AL, Armstrong KA. Communicating uncertainty: a narrative review and framework for future research. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:2586-91) from the outpatient setting to the inpatient setting, and from undergraduate medical education (UME) trainees to graduate medical education (GME) trainees. In this article, we will explore the current status of how the science of uncertainty is taught from the UME curriculum to the GME curriculum, and describe strategies how uncertainty can be explicitly discussed for all levels of trainees.

Frameworks for Integrating Learning Analytics With the Electronic Health Record

The information systems designed to support clinical care have evolved separately from those that support health professions education. This has resulted in a considerable digital divide between patient care and education, one that poorly serves practitioners and organizations, even as learning becomes ever more important to both. In this perspective, we advocate for the enhancement of existing health information systems so that they intentionally facilitate learning. We describe three well-regarded frameworks for learning that can point toward how health care information systems can best evolve to support learning. The Master Adaptive Learner model suggests ways that the individual practitioner can best organize their activities to ensure continual self-improvement. The PDSA cycle similarly proposes actions for improvement but at a health care organization's workflow level. Senge's Five Disciplines of the Learning Organization, a more general framework from the business literature, serves to further inform how disparate information and knowledge flows can be managed for continual improvement. Our main thesis holds that these types of learning frameworks should inform the design and integration of information systems serving the health professions. An underutilized mediator of educational improvement is the ubiquitous electronic health record. The authors list learning analytic opportunities, including potential modifications of learning management systems and the electronic health record, that would enhance health professions education and support the shared goal of delivering high-quality evidence-based health care.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Scoping Review and Graphical Visualization of the Evidence

BACKGROUND

Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is a hereditary neuromuscular disease with an estimated prevalence of 1/10 000 births. SMA is increasingly recognized as a multi-system disease with a need to study additional under-recognized health domains such as quality of life, fatigue, bulbar function, respiratory function, and independence.

OBJECTIVE

Identify and assess reported evidence from the literature investigating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in adults with SMA. Develop a novel method drawing from network theory to graphically depict the literature, PROMs, and supporting psychometric evidence.

METHODS

A scoping review was completed following PRISM-ScR, COSMIN and JBI scoping review guidelines. Literature investigating PROMs in adult SMA or neuromuscular disease was identified from peer-reviewed and grey databases. A network graph was derived from extracted data.

RESULTS

5292 articles were retrieved, 81 articles met inclusion criteria; corresponding to 31 unique PROMs. Only two PROMs were developed specifically for SMA. Few PROMs covered multiple domains of health. Most PROMs were incompletely validated, focusing on concurrent validity, and few assessed responsiveness or internal consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs are emerging tools for monitoring and assessing adults with SMA. Despite their potential benefits, additional validation studies should be completed prior to their use for clinical decision-making. Network graphics may represent a technique to aid in the visualization of evidence supporting a scoping review.

Pursuit of "endpoint diagnoses" as a cognitive forcing strategy to avoid premature diagnostic closure

Premature closure is often described as a significant contributor to diagnostic error. Therefore, developing strategies to mitigate premature closure could reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient care. Here we propose the novel concept of pursuit of an "endpoint diagnosis" as a cognitive forcing strategy (CFS) for avoiding premature diagnostic closure. We define an "endpoint diagnosis" as an underlying causative explanation for a patient's signs, symptoms, and laboratory and radiographic data that exhausts additional relevant diagnostic evaluation. We have observed four contexts in which the error of not pursuing an endpoint diagnosis most often occurs: (1) diagnoses that appear to result in the same treatment regardless of etiology, (2) cases that are particularly complex, (3) clinical scenarios that are vulnerable to systems errors, and (4) situations in which patients' problems are attributed to uncontrolled underlying risk factors or an exacerbation of a known condition. Additionally, we address why we believe endpoint diagnoses are not universally pursued, delineate when this approach might be particularly useful, attempt to reconcile the potential conflict between accepting diagnostic ambiguity in certain instances and pursuing endpoint diagnoses, and outline possible concerns that might arise with using this CFS, including the possibility of lengthy evaluations resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Our overarching goal is for this CFS to help clinicians in their daily clinical practice as they seek to optimize their diagnostic skill and patient care.

Teaching and assessment of clinical diagnostic reasoning in medical students

BACKGROUND

Teaching diagnostic reasoning and giving feedback has an important role in medical education. Clinicians who teach may recognise errors, but be unfamiliar with the terminology used to describe them, leading to a lack of consistent and useful student feedback.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective project evaluation study aimed to develop an examiner training package regarding errors in diagnostic reasoning, utilising consistent language and feedback tool, and report on diagnostic reasoning errors in second year medical students over the transition from preclinical to early clinical training at objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs).

RESULTS

Likert questionnaire regarding examining, assessment and feedback pre- and post-training showed improvement in all measures, including examiner feedback confidence post training (p < .001). Students (n = 235) within the cohort were examined at the first preclinical OSCE 12 weeks into the teaching year and 236 students at the end of year OSCE. A range of 0-6 diagnostic reasoning errors were reported for individual students. When comparing mean history station scores at the preclinical OSCE for students who were observed to have diagnostic reasoning errors, students with 'poor pattern recognition' had a 4.2% lower score than those without this error type (p = .04, 95% CI of difference .14, 8.32), while those with 'unfocused data collection' error had a station score 7.7% lower than those without this error (p < .001, 95% CI of difference 3.50, 11.99). At the end of teaching year clinical OSCE, all common error types were associated with poorer performance. Error pattern shifted through the two longitudinal assessments, resulting in 'poor pattern recognition' having reduced and 'too narrow' and 'premature closure' increased rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating the identification and feedback of common diagnostic reasoning errors into existing clinical assessments was feasible and easy to implement. Understanding, identifying and providing consistent feedback on common errors assists educators and could guide curriculum design.

Hiding in Plain Sight: A Retrospective Review of Unrecognized Tumors During Dermatologic Surgery

Background: Mohs micrographic surgery requires focused attention that may lead to tunnel vision bias, contributing to not recognizing skin cancer at nearby sites.

Objective: It is to determine if a subsequently diagnosed skin cancer was visible at the time of Mohs surgery.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single academic center from 2008 to 2020. Patients who underwent at least two distinct MMS procedures, separated in time to capture subsequent tumors, were included.

Results: Four hundred and four individual patients were identified with at least two distinct Mohs procedures, which generated 1,110 Mohs sequences. Fifty-one (4.6%) clinically apparent tumors went unrecognized and 127 (11.4%) tumors were identified and biopsied during the visit. High-risk tumor histology was identified in 10 (20%) unrecognized tumors and 31 (24%) recognized tumors (p-value 0.491).

Conclusion: Our study suggests that Mohs surgeons may be overlooking adjacent skin cancers when focusing only on the tumor being surgically treated. Tunnel vision bias may account for part of this phenomenon.

The use of deliberate reflection to reduce confirmation bias among orthopedic surgery residents

Introduction: cognitive biases might affect decision-making processes such as clinical reasoning and confirmation bias is among the most important ones. The use of strategies that stimulate deliberate reflection during the diagnostic process seems to reduce availability bias, but its effect in reducing confirmation bias needs to be evaluated.Aims: to examine whether deliberate reflection reduces confirmation bias and increases the diagnostic accuracy of orthopedic residents solving written clinical cases.Methods: experimental study comparing the diagnostic accuracy of orthopedic residents in the resolution of eight written clinical cases containing a referral diagnosis. Half of the written cases had a wrong referral diagnosis. One group of residents used deliberate reflection (RG), which stimulates comparison and contrast of clinical hypotheses in a systematic manner, and a control group (CG), was asked to provide differential diagnoses with no further instruction. The study included 55 third-year orthopedic residents, 27 allocated to the RG and 28 to the CG.Results: residents on the RG had higher diagnostic scores than the CG for clinical cases with a correct referral diagnosis (62.0±20.1 vs. 49.1±21.0 respectively; p = 0.021). For clinical cases with incorrect referral diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy was similar between residents on the RG and those on the CG (39.8±24.3 vs. 44.6±26.7 respectively; p = 0.662). We observed an overall confirmation bias in 26.3% of initial diagnoses (non-analytic phase) and 19.5% of final diagnoses (analytic phase) when solving clinical cases with incorrect referral diagnosis. Residents from RG showed a reduction in confirmation of incorrect referral diagnosis when comparing the initial diagnosis given in the non-analytic phase with the one provided as the final diagnosis (25.9±17.7 vs. 17.6±18.1, respectively; Cohen d: 0.46; p = 0.003). In the CG, the reduction in the confirmation of incorrect diagnosis was not statistically significant.Conclusions: confirmation bias was present when residents solved written clinical cases with incorrect referral diagnoses, and deliberate reflection reduced such bias. Despite the reduction in confirmation bias, diagnostic accuracy of residents from the RG was similar to those from the CG when solving the set of clinical cases with a wrong referral diagnosis.

Improving the Relationship Between Confidence and Competence: Implications for Diagnostic Radiology Training From the Psychology and Medical Literature

The focus of diagnostic radiology training is on creating competent professionals, whereas confidence and its calibration receive less attention. Appropriate confidence is critical for patient care both during and after training. Overconfidence can adversely affect patient care and underconfidence can create excessive costs. We reviewed the psychology and medical literature pertaining to confidence and competence to collect insights and best practices from the psychology and medical literature on confidence and apply them to radiology training. People are rarely accurate in assessments of their own competence. Among physicians, the correlation between perceived abilities and external assessments of those abilities is weak. Overconfidence is more prevalent than underconfidence, particularly at lower levels of competence. On the individual level, confidence can be calibrated to a more appropriate level through efforts to increase competence, including sub-specialization, and by gaining a better understanding of metacognitive processes. With feedback, high-fidelity simulation has the potential to improve both competence and metacognition. On the system level, systems that facilitate access to follow-up imaging, pathology, and clinical outcomes can help close the gap between perceived and actual performance. Appropriate matching of trainee confidence and competence should be a goal of radiology residency and fellowship training to help mitigate the adverse effects of both overconfidence and underconfidence during training and independent practice.

Decision Making: Healthy Heuristics and Betraying Biases

Critical care settings are unpredictable, dynamic environments where clinicians face high decision density in suboptimal conditions (stress, time constraints, competing priorities). Experts have described two systems of human decision making: one fast and intuitive; the other slow and methodical. Heuristics, or mental shortcuts, a key feature of intuitive reasoning, are often accurate, applied instinctively, and essential for efficient diagnostic decision making. Heuristics are also prone to failures, or cognitive biases, which can lead to diagnostic errors. A variety of strategies have been proposed to mitigate biases; however, current understanding of such interventions to optimize diagnostic safety is still incomplete.

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15).

RESULTS

Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children.

CONCLUSION

Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites.

Diagnostic Errors in Neuroradiology: A Message to Emergency Radiologists and Trainees

Diagnostic errors in neuroradiology are inevitable, yet potentially avoidable. Through extensive literature search, we present an up-to-date review of the psychology of human decision making and how such complex process can lead to radiologic errors. Our focus is on neuroradiology, so we augmented our review with multiple explanatory figures to show how different errors can reflect on real-life clinical practice. We propose a new thematic categorization of perceptual and cognitive biases in this article to simplify message delivery to our target audience: emergency/general radiologists and trainees. Additionally, we highlight individual and organizational remedy strategies to decrease error rate and potential harm.

Upgrades to intensive care: The effects of COVID-19 on decision-making in the emergency department

Introduction

The initial surge of critically ill patients in the COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted processes at acute care hospitals. This study examines the frequency and causes for patients upgraded to intensive care unit (ICU) level care following admission from the emergency department (ED) to non-critical care units.

Methods

The number of ICU upgrades per month was determined, including the percentage of upgrades noted to have non-concordant diagnoses. Charts with non-concordant diagnoses were examined in detail as to the ED medical decision-making, clinical circumstances surrounding the upgrade, and presence of a diagnosis of COVID-19. For each case, a cognitive bias was assigned.

Results

The percentage of upgraded cases with non-concordant diagnoses increased from a baseline range of 14–20% to 41.3%. The majority of upgrades were due to premature closure (72.2%), anchoring (61.1%), and confirmation bias (55.6%).

Conclusion

Consistent with the behavioral literature, this suggests that stressful ambient conditions affect cognitive reasoning processes.

Disagreements between emergency patients and physicians regarding chief complaint - Patient factors and prognostic implications

INTRODUCTION

The predictive power of chief complaints reported at presentation to the emergency department (ED) is well known. However, there is a lack of research on the coherence of patient versus physician reported chief complaints. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of disagreement between patients and physicians regarding chief complaint and its significance for the prediction of the outcomes number of resources used during ED work-up, hospitalisation, ICU admission, in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a study conducted over a time course of 9 weeks, consecutive emergency patients and their physicians were independently asked to report the chief complaint upon presentation. The two reports were assessed for pair-wise agreement.

RESULTS

Of 6722 emergency patients (mean age 53.3, 46.8% female), the median number of symptoms reported by patients was two and one reported by physicians. The rate of disagreement on chief complaints was 32.6%. Disagreement was associated with a higher number of resources (β = 0.24; CI, 0.18, 0.31, P <.001) and hospitalisation (OR = 1.31; CI, 1.16, 1.48, P <.001), using multivariable analyses. Patient factors associated with disagreement were age (OR = 1.01; CI, 1.01, 1.01, P <.001), number of patient reported symptoms (OR = 1.27; CI, 1.23, 1.32, P <.001) and male gender (OR = 1.12; 1.01, 1.25, P =.0285).

CONCLUSION

Disagreement on chief complaint between patient and physician may be an early marker for a complex work-up, requiring more resources and hospitalisations. The relevance of this finding is the newly identified signal of chief complaint replacement. It is easy to identify and should generate attention, as it affects a certain phenotype (older male patients with higher numbers of complaints).

Possible associations between callers' degree-of-worry and their socioeconomic status when contacting out-of-hours services: a prospective cohort study

Background

Telephone triage within out-of-hours (OOH) services aims to ascertain the urgency of a caller’s medical condition in order to determine the correct type of health care needed, ensuring patient safety. To improve the triage process by increasing patient-centred communication, a triage tool has been developed, whereby callers are asked to rate their degree-of-worry (DOW) as a measure of self-evaluated urgency. Studies show that low socioeconomic status (SES), being single and non-Western ethnicity are associated to low self-rated health and high morbidity and these factors may also be associated with high DOW. The aim of this paper was to examine if low SES, being single and non-Western ethnicity were associated to high DOW of callers contacting OOH services.

Methods

A prospective cohort study design, at the OOH services for the Capital Region of Denmark. Over 2 weeks, 6869 of 38,787 callers met the inclusion criteria: ≥18 years, patients themselves or close relative/friend, reported DOW, had a valid personal identification number and gave informed consent. Callers were asked to report their DOW (1 = minimal worry to 5 = maximal worry), which was dichotomized into low (1–3) and high (4, 5) DOW and linked to data from electronical medical records and Statistics Denmark. Socioeconomic factors (education and annual household income), marital status and ethnicity were assessed in relation to DOW by logistic regression.

Results

High DOW was reported by 38.2% of the participants. Low SES (low educational level; OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.7 and low annual household income; 1.5, 1.3–1.6) was associated with high DOW and so too was being single; 1.2, 1.1–1.3 and of non-Western ethnicity; 2.9, 2.5–3.4.

Conclusions

Knowledge of the association of low SES, marital status as single and non-Western ethnicity with high DOW among callers to OOH services may give call handlers a better understanding of callers’ DOW. If this does not correspond to the call handler’s perception of urgency, this knowledge may further encourage patient-centred communication, aid the triage process and increase patient safety. A better understanding of socioeconomic variables and their relation to callers’ DOW gives direction for future research to improve telephone triage of OOH services.

The relationship between time to diagnose and diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents: a randomized experiment

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors have been attributed to cognitive biases (reasoning shortcuts), which are thought to result from fast reasoning. Suggested solutions include slowing down the reasoning process. However, slower reasoning is not necessarily more accurate than faster reasoning. In this study, we studied the relationship between time to diagnose and diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center within-subjects experiment where we prospectively induced availability bias (using Mamede et al.'s methodology) in 117 internal medicine residents. Subsequently, residents diagnosed cases that resembled those bias cases but had another correct diagnosis. We determined whether residents were correct, incorrect due to bias (i.e. they provided the diagnosis induced by availability bias) or due to other causes (i.e. they provided another incorrect diagnosis) and compared time to diagnose.

RESULTS

We did not successfully induce bias: no significant effect of availability bias was found. Therefore, we compared correct diagnoses to all incorrect diagnoses. Residents reached correct diagnoses faster than incorrect diagnoses (115 s vs. 129 s, p < .001). Exploratory analyses of cases where bias was induced showed a trend of time to diagnose for bias diagnoses to be more similar to correct diagnoses (115 s vs 115 s, p = .971) than to other errors (115 s vs 136 s, p = .082).

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that correct diagnoses were made faster than incorrect diagnoses, even within subjects. Errors due to availability bias may be different: exploratory analyses suggest a trend that biased cases were diagnosed faster than incorrect diagnoses. The hypothesis that fast reasoning leads to diagnostic errors should be revisited, but more research into the characteristics of cognitive biases is important because they may be different from other causes of diagnostic errors.

"I made a mistake!": A narrative analysis of experienced physicians' stories of preventable error

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The complexity of healthcare systems makes errors unavoidable. To strengthen the dialogue around how physicians experience and share medical errors, the objective of this study was to understand how generalist physicians make meaning of and grow from their medical errors.

METHODS

This study used a narrative inquiry approach to conduct and analyse in-depth interviews from 26 physicians from the generalist specialties of emergency, internal, and family medicine. We gathered stories via individual interview, analysed them for key components, and rewrote a "meta-story" in a chronological sequence. We conceptualized the findings into a metaphor to draw similarities, learn from, and apply new principles from other fields of practice.

RESULTS

Through analysis we interpreted the story of a physician who is required to make numerous decisions in a short period of time in different clinical environments among the patient's family and whilst abiding by existing rules and regulations. Through sharing stories of success and failure, the clinical supervisor can help optimize the physician's emotional growth and professional development. Similarly, through sharing and learning from stories, colleagues and trainees can also contribute to the growth of the protagonist's character and the development of clinic, hospital, and healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

We draw parallels between the clinical setting and a generalist physician's experiences of a medical error with the environment and practices within professional sports. Using this comparison, we discuss the potential for meaningful coaching in medical education.

Medical dispatchers' perception of the interaction with the caller during emergency calls - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Medical dispatching is a highly complex procedure and has an impact upon patient outcome. It includes call-taking and triage, prioritization of resources and the provision of guidance and instructions to callers. Whilst emergency medical dispatchers play a key role in the process, their perception of the process is rarely reported. We explored medical dispatchers' perception of the interaction with the caller during emergency calls. Secondly, we aimed to develop a model for emergency call handling based on these findings.

METHODS

To provide an in-depth understanding of the dispatching process, an explorative qualitative interview study was designed. A grounded theory design and thematic analysis were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 5 paramedics and 6 registered nurses were interviewed. The emerging themes derived from dispatchers' perception of the emergency call process were related to both the callers and the medical dispatchers themselves, from which four and three themes were identified, respectively. Dispatchers reported that for callers, the motive for calling, the situation, the perception and presentation of the problem was influencing factors. For the dispatchers the expertise, teamwork and organization influenced the process. Based on the medical dispatchers´ perception, a model of the workflow and interaction between the caller and the dispatcher was developed based on themes related to the caller and the dispatcher.

CONCLUSIONS

According to medical dispatchers, the callers seem to lack knowledge about best utilization of the emergency number and the medical dispatching process, which can be improved by public awareness campaigns and incorporating information into first aid courses. For medical dispatchers the most potent modifiable factors were based upon the continuous professional development of the medical dispatchers and the system that supports them. The model of call handling underlines the complexity of medical dispatching that embraces the context of the call beyond clinical presentation of the problem.

If in Doubt Don't Act Out! Exploring Behaviours in Clinical Decision Making by General Surgeons Towards Surgical Procedures

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision-making (CDM) plays an integral role to surgeons work and has ramifications for patient outcomes and experience. The factors influencing a surgeons decision-making and the utility of cognitive decisional short cuts used in CDM known as 'heuristics' remains unknown. The aim of this paper is to explore how general surgeons make decisions in high-stake biliary tract clinical scenarios.

METHODS

This was a cross sectional survey comprising of two sections-a 'demographics section' and a 'clinical vignettes section'. Participants were recruited by an email distributed by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Non-parametric testing examined relationships and content analysis was applied for clinical reasoning.

RESULTS

73 participants or 37.6% of the overall population completed the survey. 71.4% of these were male. Most (50%) were higher trainees with moderate levels of overall reflective practice in decision-making. A majority of participants chose conservatively in high-stake biliary tract clinical cases with disease factors (43.5%) weighted highest, followed by personal factors (41.1%) and patient factors (15.4%) in clinical reasoning. The presence of a 'hook' associated with commonly used heuristics did not significantly change decision-making behaviour.

CONCLUSION

In high-stake scenarios, surgeons make conservative clinical decisions, predominantly dominated by disease and personal justifications. The utility of heuristics in lower-stake scenarios should be explored regarding clinical decision-making rationale and outcomes. Practitioners should consider use of patient factors in high-stake decisions to enable shared decision-making when appropriate which can reduce post-decisional regret and support the vision of patient-centred care.

"The Heart is a House": A Heuristic for Generating Cardiac Differential Diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Differential diagnosis (DDx) is a core clinical reasoning skill that all medical students and physicians must acquire and develop. Metamemory techniques (MMTs), including mnemonic devices and other heuristics, are frequently taught to students as a means of enhancing DDx generation. The Heart is A House (HIAH), an MMT that works by prompting students to think about cardiac disease in terms of four structural subsystems, can be used to facilitate the generation of cardiac differentials, but its efficacy has not been studied.

METHODS

In a 3-hour DDx workshop, second-year medical students were given a brief case vignette of a patient with chest pain and dyspnea and asked to generate initial differential diagnoses before and after learning HIAH. Descriptive statistics and paired T-tests were used to compare the sizes of cardiac-only and total differentials pre-/post-HIAH. Cardiac diagnoses were classified according to the structural categories described by HIAH, and Simpson's Diversity Index (SDI) was used to evaluate the effect of HIAH on the variety of cardiac diagnoses produced.

RESULTS

All students in the course (N = 111) submitted pre-post differential lists. The mean number of diagnoses included in their differentials did not change significantly after exposure to HIAH (7.98 vs. 8.71, P = .09). However, the number of potentially correct cardiac diagnoses increased from 1.79 to 4.75 (P < .0001), and the variety of structure/function cardiac categories considered by students increased more than twofold (from an SDI of 0.16 to 0.4, P < .0001). These increases were accompanied by a small increase in incorrect diagnoses ( + 2.47%, P = .0003) and a larger decrease in potentially correct noncardiac diagnoses (-41.88%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The use of HIAH was associated with an increase in the size and variety of cardiac differentials. This increase may have come at the cost of a reduced noncardiac differential. Educators may find HIAH useful for guiding students as they reason through cases involving potential cardiac etiologies. As with all heuristics, care must be exercised to avoid introducing unwanted bias.

Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the patient with an anticipated difficult airway

PURPOSE

Since the last Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) guidelines were published in 2013, the published airway management literature has expanded substantially. The CAFG therefore re-convened to examine this literature and update practice recommendations. This second of two articles addresses airway evaluation, decision-making, and safe implementation of an airway management strategy when difficulty is anticipated.

SOURCE

Canadian Airway Focus Group members, including anesthesia, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians were assigned topics to search. Searches were run in the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL databases. Results were presented to the group and discussed during video conferences every two weeks from April 2018 to July 2020. These CAFG recommendations are based on the best available published evidence. Where high-quality evidence is lacking, statements are based on group consensus.

FINDINGS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to airway management, a documented strategy should be formulated for every patient, based on airway evaluation. Bedside examination should seek predictors of difficulty with face-mask ventilation (FMV), tracheal intubation using video- or direct laryngoscopy (VL or DL), supraglottic airway use, as well as emergency front of neck airway access. Patient physiology and contextual issues should also be assessed. Predicted difficulty should prompt careful decision-making on how most safely to proceed with airway management. Awake tracheal intubation may provide an extra margin of safety when impossible VL or DL is predicted, when difficulty is predicted with more than one mode of airway management (e.g., tracheal intubation and FMV), or when predicted difficulty coincides with significant physiologic or contextual issues. If managing the patient after the induction of general anesthesia despite predicted difficulty, team briefing should include triggers for moving from one technique to the next, expert assistance should be sourced, and required equipment should be present. Unanticipated difficulty with airway management can always occur, so the airway manager should have a strategy for difficulty occurring in every patient, and the institution must make difficult airway equipment readily available. Tracheal extubation of the at-risk patient must also be carefully planned, including assessment of the patient's tolerance for withdrawal of airway support and whether re-intubation might be difficult.

Common and external iliac artery occlusion in Behçet's disease: a case of anchoring bias

This report describes the case of a 45-year-old woman with a history of Behçet's disease and complex regional pain syndrome of her legs who presented with severe pain and swelling in her left lower extremity. The patient was initially diagnosed with exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome, which fit the symptom complex of hyperalgesia, oedema and skin temperature changes. However, after unsuccessful attempts at significant pain relief during admission, CT angiography demonstrated occlusion of the left common and external iliac arteries, a limb-threatening emergency. This case describes an example of anchoring bias, a type of cognitive bias in which there is a tendency to rely too heavily on an initial piece of information, the 'anchor', when making decisions. This report emphasises that clinicians should be aware of biases when making decisions and avoid anchoring bias by asking themselves if their diagnosis is influenced by any leading pieces of information.

Teaching heuristics and mnemonics to improve generation of differential diagnoses

Background: Differential diagnosis (DDx) is one of the key cognitive skills that medical learners must develop. However, little is known regarding the best methods for teaching DDx skills. As metacognition plays a fundamental role in the diagnostic process, we hypothesized that the teaching of specific heuristics and mnemonics collectively termed metamemory techniques (MMTs) would enhance the capacity of medical students to generate differential diagnoses.Methods: In a 90-min DDx workshop, third-year medical students (N = 114) were asked to generate differentials before and after learning each of four MMTs. Differential sizes were compared using a linear mixed-effect model. Students also completed a post-session questionnaire which included a subjective ranking of the MMTs, as well as Likert-scale and free-text sections for course feedback.Results: One MMT (the Mental CT Scan, an anatomic visualization technique) significantly increased the size of student differentials (+13.3%, p =.0005). However, a marked cumulative increase across all four MMTs was noted (+36.5%, p <.0001). A majority of students ranked the Mental CT Scan the most useful MMT (51.5%). They found the workshop both worthwhile (4.51/5, CI 4.33-4.69) and enjoyable (4.33/5, CI 4.12-4.55), and considered the MMTs they learned useful and practical (4.49/5, CI 4.32-4.67).Conclusion: The MMT-based DDx workshop was effective in enhancing the skill of DDx generation, and was rated very favorably by students.

Review of the Basics of Cognitive Error in Emergency Medicine: Still No Easy Answers

Emergency physicians (EP) make clinical decisions multiple times daily. In some instances, medical errors occur due to flaws in the complex process of clinical reasoning and decision-making. Cognitive error can be difficult to identify and is equally difficult to prevent. To reduce the risk of patient harm resulting from errors in critical thinking, it has been proposed that we train physicians to understand and maintain awareness of their thought process, to identify error-prone clinical situations, to recognize predictable vulnerabilities in thinking, and to employ strategies to avert cognitive errors. The first step to this approach is to gain an understanding of how physicians make decisions and what conditions may predispose to faulty decision-making. We review the dual-process theory, which offers a framework to understand both intuitive and analytical reasoning, and to identify the necessary conditions to support optimal cognitive processing. We also discuss systematic deviations from normative reasoning known as cognitive biases, which were first described in cognitive psychology and have been identified as a contributing factor to errors in medicine. Training physicians in common biases and strategies to mitigate their effect is known as debiasing. A variety of debiasing techniques have been proposed for use by clinicians. We sought to review the current evidence supporting the effectiveness of these strategies in the clinical setting. This discussion of improving clinical reasoning is relevant to medical educators as well as practicing EPs engaged in continuing medical education.

"Starting from a higher place": linking Habermas to teaching and learning clinical reasoning in the emergency medicine context

Teaching clinical reasoning in emergency medicine requires educators to foster diagnostic accuracy and judicious decision-making amidst chaotic ambient factors including clinician fatigue, high cognitive load, and diverse patient expectations. The current study applies the early work of Jurgen Habermas and his knowledge-constitutive interests as a lens to explore an educational approach where physician-educators were asked to make their expert reasoning visible to emergency medicine trainees, to more deliberately make visible and accessible the context-specific thinking that emergency physicians routinely use. An action research methodology was used. The 'making thinking visible' teaching approach was introduced to five emergency medicine educators working in large public hospital emergency departments. Participants were asked to trial this teaching method and document its impact on student learning over two reporting cycles. Based on written reports of trialing the teaching approach, participants identified a need to change from: (1) introducing thinking structures to cultivating enquiry; and, (2) providing explanations based on cognitive thinking routines towards encouraging the learner to see the relevance of the clinical context. Educators described how they developed a more diagnostic and reflexive approach to learners, recognized the need to cultivate independent thinking, and valued the opportunity to reflect on their usual teaching. Teaching clinical reasoning using the 'making thinking visible' approach prompted educators to decrease the emphasis on providing technical information to assisting learners to understand the purposes and meanings behind clinical reasoning in emergency medicine. The knowledge-constitutive interests work of Jurgen Habermas was found to provide a robust framework supporting this emancipatory teaching approach.

The effect of prior experience on diagnostic reasoning: exploration of availability bias

Objectives Diagnostic reasoning has been shown to be influenced by a prior similar patient case. However, it is unclear whether this process influences diagnostic error rates or whether clinicians at all experience levels are equally susceptible. The present study measured the influence of specific prior exposure and experience level on diagnostic accuracy. Methods To create the experience of prior exposure, participants (pre-clerkship medical students, emergency medicine residents, and faculty) first verified diagnoses of clinical vignettes. The influence of prior exposures was measured using equiprobable clinical vignettes; indicating two diagnoses. Participants diagnosed equiprobable cases that were: 1) matched to exposure cases (in one of three conditions: a) similar patient features, similar clinical features; b) dissimilar patient features, similar clinical features; c) similar patient features, dissimilar clinical features), or 2) not matched to any prior case (d) no exposure). A diagnosis consistent with a matched exposure case was scored correct. Cases with no prior exposure had no matched cases, hence validated the equiprobable design. Results Diagnosis A represented 47% of responses in condition d, but there was no influence of specific similarity of patient characteristics for Diagnosis A, F(3,712)=7.28, p=0.28 or Diagnosis B, F(3,712)=4.87, p=0.19. When re-scored based on matching both equiprobable diagnoses, accuracy was high, but favored faculty (n=40) 98%, and residents (n=39) 98% over medical students (n=32) 85%, F(2,712)=35.6, p<0.0001. Accuracy for medical students was 84, 87, 94, and 73% for conditions a-d, respectively, interaction F(2,712)=3.55, p<0.002. Conclusions The differential diagnosis of pre-clerkship medical students improved with prior exposure, but this was unrelated to specific case or patient features. The accuracy of medical residents and staff was not influenced by prior exposure.

SPRINT Through Tasks: A Novel Curriculum for Improving Resident Task Management in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

The emergency department (ED) presents a challenging task-management environment to emergency medicine (EM) trainees. However, equipping residents with a tool to improve task switching (generically known as multitasking) could have positive impacts on patient care and physician emotional state. We designed a task-management tool and educational curriculum with the goal of improving emergency medicine resident task-switching ability.

METHODS

The task-management tool uses the acronym SPRINT: (1) stabilize critical patients, (2) perform procedures, (3) rack (see new patients in the chart rack), (4) in or out (reassess and disposition), (5) type it up (chart completion). These tasks and their order were decided on by two seasoned clinicians based on their years of experience in the ED. The SPRINT tool was taught to EM residents through a 1-hour curriculum consisting of an introductory video, a classroom-based workshop with multimedia didactics, and team learning with a card game simulating the use of the SPRINT tool on a shift. Residents were surveyed to evaluate their task-management confidence and perceived effectiveness of the curriculum.

RESULTS

A total of 34 EM residents participated in this training on the SPRINT tool. There was an improvement in resident confidence in task management, and residents reporting having a strategy for task prioritization 8 weeks after the workshop.

DISCUSSION

The SPRINT curriculum provides EM residents with a tool to manage the complex task-management environment of the ED. Further research in task-management education should focus on patient-oriented outcomes among physicians who have received this training.

Education initiatives in cognitive debiasing to improve diagnostic accuracy in student providers: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of diagnostic errors by health care providers has prompted medical educators to examine cognitive biases and debiasing strategies in an effort to prevent these errors. The National Academy of Medicine hypothesized that explicit diagnostic reasoning education of all health care professionals can improve diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this scoping review is to identify, analyze, and summarize the existing literature on student health care providers' use of cognitive debiasing strategies to reduce diagnostic error.

DATA SOURCES

The review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Scopus databases for debiasing strategies in student provider education yielded 33 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The 33 studies included in this review represent four categories of debiasing strategies: increased medical knowledge or experience (seven studies), guided reflection (eight studies), self-explanation of reasoning (nine studies), and checklists to expand diagnosis considerations (seven studies). The studies were inclusive of medical students and residents; no studies included nurse practitioner (NP) students. Guided reflection, the most clearly defined and implemented strategy, showed the most promise for improvement of diagnostic accuracy. Educational interventions were wide ranging in content and delivery but did yield a path for future research.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are myriad debiasing strategies student providers may use to mitigate cognitive bias. Structured reflection and education initiatives demonstrated the most consistent improvements in diagnostic accuracy. Future studies on debiasing strategies must include NP students to understand their response to these initiatives.

Making Decisions in the Era of the Clinical Decision Rule: How Emergency Physicians Use Clinical Decision Rules

PURPOSE

Physicians are often asked to integrate clinical decision rules (CDRs) with their own cognitive processes to reach a diagnosis. Clinicians, researchers, and educators must understand these cognitive processes to evaluate and improve the diagnostic process. The authors sought to explore emergency physicians' diagnostic processes and to examine how they integrated CDRs into their reasoning using simulated cases (with chest pain or leg pain).

METHOD

From August 2015 to July 2016, 16 practicing emergency physicians from 3 teaching hospitals associated with McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, were interviewed via a novel "teach aloud" protocol. Six videos of simulated patients with chest pain, breathlessness, or leg discomfort were used as prompts for the physicians to demonstrate their diagnostic thinking. Using a constructivist grounded theory analysis, 3 investigators independently reviewed the interview transcripts, meeting regularly to discuss identified themes and subthemes until sufficiency was reached.

RESULTS

A model to describe how clinicians integrate their own decision making with CDRs was developed, showing that physicians engage in an iterative diagnostic process that repeatedly refines the differential diagnosis list. The steps in the diagnostic process were: refinement of the differential diagnosis, ordering a hierarchy of risk, the decision to test, choosing the tests, and interpreting test results. Physicians applied CDRs when they had already decided to test.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, CDRs assume a static, linear model of clinical decision making. Findings demonstrate that participants engaged in iterative and dynamic decision-making processes that changed throughout their patient encounter, contingent on multiple contextual features. Understanding these processes could inform future development of CDRs and educational strategies around these decision aids.

What does research on clinical reasoning have to say to clinical teachers?

Clinical reasoning is a crucial determinant of physicians’ performance. It is key to arrive at a correct diagnosis, which substantially increases the chance of appropriate therapeutic decisions. Clinical teachers face the daily challenge of helping their students to develop clinical reasoning. To select appropriate teaching strategies, it may be useful to become acquainted with the results of the research on clinical reasoning that has been conducted over the last decades. This article synthesizes the findings of this research that help in particular to understand the cognitive processes involved in clinical reasoning, the trajectory that leads the student from novice to expert, and instructional approaches that have been shown to be useful to facilitating this trajectory. The focus of the article is the diagnostic process, because it is about it that most research has been conducted. This research indicates that there is not a particular reasoning strategy that is specific to expert physicians and could be taught to students. It is the availability of a large knowledge base organized in memory in illness scripts of different formats that explains the expert’s better performance. The more, the richer, and the more well-structured are the illness scripts a physician has stored in memory, the more he/she would be able to make accurate diagnoses. These scripts are formed gradually over the years of education. To help develop them, students should be exposed to a wide variety of clinical problems, with which they must interact actively. Instructional approaches that require students to systematically reflect on problems, analyzing differences and similarities between them, explaining underlying mechanisms, comparing and contrasting alternative diagnoses, have proved useful to help refine disease scripts. These approaches are valuable tools for teachers concerned with the development of their students clinical reasoning.

Missed Breast Cancer: Effects of Subconscious Bias and Lesion Characteristics

Medical errors are a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality and the third leading cause of death in the United States. Errors resulting in missed breast cancer are the most common reason for medical malpractice lawsuits against all physicians. Missed breast cancers are breast malignancies that are detectable at retrospective review of a previously obtained mammogram that was prospectively reported as showing negative, benign, or probably benign findings. Investigators in prior studies have found that up to 35% of both interval cancers and screen-detected cancers could be classified as missed. As such, in conjunction with having awareness of the most common misleading appearances of breast cancer, it is important to understand the cognitive processes and unconscious biases that can impact image interpretation, thereby helping to decrease the number of missed breast cancers. The various cognitive processes that lead to unconscious bias in breast imaging, such as satisfaction of search, inattention blindness, hindsight, anchoring, premature closing, and satisfaction of reporting, are outlined in this pictorial review of missed breast cancers. In addition, strategies for reducing the rates of these missed cancers are highlighted. The most commonly missed and misinterpreted lesions, including stable lesions, benign-appearing masses, one-view findings, developing asymmetries, subtle calcifications, and architectural distortion, also are reviewed. This information will help illustrate why and how breast cancers are missed and aid in the development of appropriate minimization strategies in breast imaging. ^©RSNA, 2020.

Teaching Clinical Reasoning and Critical Thinking: From Cognitive Theory to Practical Application

Teaching clinical reasoning is challenging, particularly in the time-pressured and complicated environment of the ICU. Clinical reasoning is a complex process in which one identifies and prioritizes pertinent clinical data to develop a hypothesis and a plan to confirm or refute that hypothesis. Clinical reasoning is related to and dependent on critical thinking skills, which are defined as one's capacity to engage in higher cognitive skills such as analysis, synthesis, and self-reflection. This article reviews how an understanding of the cognitive psychological principles that contribute to effective clinical reasoning has led to strategies for teaching clinical reasoning in the ICU. With familiarity with System 1 and System 2 thinking, which represent intuitive vs analytical cognitive processing pathways, respectively, the clinical teacher can use this framework to identify cognitive patterns in clinical reasoning. In addition, the article describes how internal and external factors in the clinical environment can affect students' and trainees' clinical reasoning abilities, as well as their capacity to understand and incorporate strategies for effective critical thinking into their practice. Utilizing applicable cognitive psychological theory, the relevant literature on teaching clinical reasoning is reviewed, and specific strategies to effectively teach clinical reasoning and critical thinking in the ICU and other clinical settings are provided. Definitions, operational descriptions, and justifications for a variety of teaching interventions are discussed, including the "one-minute preceptor" model, the use of concept or mechanism maps, and cognitive de-biasing strategies.

How to think like an emergency care provider: a conceptual mental model for decision making in emergency care

BACKGROUND

General medicine commonly adopts a strategy based on the analytic approach utilizing the hypothetico-deductive method. Medical emergency care and education have been following similarly the same approach. However, the unique milieu and task complexity in emergency care settings pose a challenge to the analytic approach, particularly when confronted with a critically ill patient who requires immediate action. Despite having discussions in the literature addressing the unique characteristics of medical emergency care settings, there has been hardly any alternative structured mental model proposed to overcome those challenges.

METHODS

This paper attempts to address a conceptual mental model for emergency care that combines both analytic as well as non-analytic methods in decision making.

RESULTS

The proposed model is organized in an alphabetical mnemonic, A-H. The proposed model includes eight steps for approaching emergency cases, viz., awareness, basic supportive measures, control of potential threats, diagnostics, emergency care, follow-up, groups of particular interest, and highlights. These steps might be utilized to organize and prioritize the management of emergency patients.

DISCUSSION

Metacognition is very important to develop practicable mental models in practice. The proposed model is flexible and takes into consideration the dynamicity of emergency cases. It also combines both analytic and non-analytic skills in medical education and practice.

CONCLUSION

Combining various clinical reasoning provides better opportunity, particularly for trainees and novices, to develop their experience and learn new skills. This mental model could be also of help for seasoned practitioners in their teaching, audits, and review of emergency cases.