Factors associated with clinical reasoning ability

Robert Bell rmsbell200 at YAHOO.COM
Sat Sep 10 17:14:17 UTC 2016


Good comments.

Should standard errors which are said to be the largest portion of the error pie be worked on before, at the same time, or after working on cognitive and diagnostic errors? Or to put it another way, is there a place for triaging in our priorities?

Rob Bell, MD

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 10, 2016, at 6:03, Pat Croskerry <croskerry at EASTLINK.CA> wrote:

> Stephanie: I think it all overlaps. The diagnostic process can be very straightforward and seamless at times, but, at others, (often during cognitive overload, fatigue, sleep deprivation) can be excruciatingly complex.
> 
> Many of us are out of our depth when it comes to recognising the myriad cognitive factors that can impact decision making. Often, it is the case that decision makers have knowledge deficits about how cognitive and affective biases work. Ironically, the phenomenon is known as ‘bias blind spot’ (a bias against accepting and understanding biases) and it is fairly widespread because many medical curricula do not teach about bias. Although understanding cognition should be a vital objective in medical training, it usually isn’t. Many other domains of human activity are now coming to terms with the impact of bias on decision making (US Intelligence agency, World Bank, NASA, Business, Legal system) – medicine should not get left behind.
> 
> Understanding the cognitive processes that underlie diagnostic decision making is high hanging fruit and the preference will always be for more accessible solutions.
> 
> Embracing the findings of cognitive science is the first step towards getting at the high hanging fruit in understanding clinical decision making. (Table 1 in the attached paper summarises a number of factors that have been responsible for our failure to understand the diagnostic process).
> 
> The paper by Colbert et al is a good example of the direction we should be taking on this.
> 
>  
> 
> Pat Croskerry MD, PhD, FRCP(Edin)
> 
> Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine,
> 
> Director, Critical Thinking Program,
> 
> Dalhousie University Medical School,
> 
> Halifax, Nova Scotia
> 
> CANADA
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> and.: Stefanie Lee [mailto:stefanieylee at GMAIL.COM] 
> Sent: September 10, 2016 12:51 AM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Factors associated with clinical reasoning ability
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you all for the thought-provoking insights! To add an observation from the settings where I've worked: a common characteristic of clinicians who rarely get into serious trouble with diagnostic error seems to be their ability to "know what they don't know." 
> 
>  
> 
> In practice, this means they are skilled at discriminating when they can confidently make a diagnosis, versus when a case may be out of their depth. 
> 
>  
> 
> In the latter instance, they acknowledge and take steps to manage that uncertainty: doing more research on the topic, consulting colleagues, or recommending a course of action that ensures the patient is reevaluated in a timely manner.
> 
>  
> 
> If someone does not recognize a case as needing extra attention/assistance, they may offer a diagnosis with more confidence than is warranted, not seek input from others, or fail to convey the need for close followup and/or further workup, increasing the risk of diagnostic error.
> 
>  
> 
> -- Questions: How successfully can the ability to "know what you don't know" be fostered in trainees or practicing clinicians? (attached an article on teaching metacognitive skills) 
> 
>  
> 
> Does work on this essentially overlap, or does it differ in any way from efforts to teach cognitive debiasing or improve situational awareness?
> 
>  
> 
> With appreciation for everyone's input,
> 
> Stefanie
> 
>  
> 
> On 31 August 2016 at 11:30, Grubenhoff, Joe <Joe.Grubenhoff at childrenscolorado.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> It would be great to hear from others on the listserv about this.  What observable behaviors characterize clinicians who excel at diagnosis?
> 
> 1)      In the academic setting, providers who tend to use a Socratic approach to draw out their learners’ reasoning are often very adept at diagnosis.
> 
> 2)      Providers who tend to share their personal stories of erroneous diagnosis AND impart their deconstruction of what led to the error demonstrate an introspection and willingness to serve the success of all by admitting their own “faults”: this underlies a general commitment to improve one’s own dx acumen.
> 
> 3)      The generalist who, when getting advice from a consultant, is willing to say: “I did not know X,Y,Z. Can you explain this to me so I can catch in the future?”
> 
> 4)      Along the lines of #3, being willing to tell a patient, I’m not sure what this is and I’m going to look something up. (humility and quest for new knowledge)
> 
> a.       As a med student I was seeing a gentleman with AIDS in a VA gen surg clinic with deep purple skin lesions. The surgeon told me to go read up on skin manifestations of AIDS since I admitted I knew nothing. The man had Kaposi sarcomas. I’m now a peds ER doc so never see these but the lesson stayed with me.   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> 
> Joe Grubenhoff, MD, MSCS| Associate Professor of Pediatrics 
> Section of Emergency Medicine | University of Colorado
> 
> Children's Hospital Colorado
> 
> 13123 East 16th Avenue, Box 251  |  Anschutz Medical Campus  |  Aurora, CO 80045 | Phone: (303) 724-2581 | Fax: (720) 777-7317
> 
> joe.grubenhoff at childrenscolorado.org
> 
> 
> Connect with Children's Hospital Colorado on Facebook and Twitter
> 
> 
> <image002.jpg>
> 
> For a child’s sake…
> 
>                 We are a caring community called to honor the sacred trust of our patients, families and each other through
> 
>                 humble expertise, generous service and boundless creativity.
> 
> …This is the moment.
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mark Graber [mailto:mark.graber at IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:38 AM
> To: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Factors associated with clinical reasoning ability
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for sharing Dr Manesh’ survey, Shantanu.  
> 
>  
> 
> If the goal is to assess their clinical reasoning, I’d like to see other questions, like these:
> 
>             When confronted with a new diagnostic challenge, I regularly construct (and document) a differential diagnosis
> 
>             When I’m not sure of a diagnosis or ’the next step', I get a second opinion from a peer
> 
>             When I’ve reached a tentative diagnosis, I consider whether my conclusion might have been influenced by a cognitive bias
> 
>  
> 
> If the goal is broader, looking at success in the diagnostic process, there are other key behaviors that are relevant:
> 
>             Have I succeeded in making the patient a partner in the diagnostic process?
> 
>             Does my patient know when, why, and how to get back to me if the symptoms persist, change or don’t respond to treatment?
> 
>             How often do I personally interact with the radiologists or pathologists interpreting diagnostic tests on my patients?
> 
>             According to independent surveys, how effectively am I communicating with my patients?
> 
>             Do I keep a record of tests and consults ordered and make sure I close the loop on all of these?
> 
>             Do I designate a surrogate to review returning test results if I’m going on vacation?
> 
>  
> 
> It would be great to hear from others on the listserv about this.  What observable behaviors characterize clinicians who excel at diagnosis?
> 
>  
> 
> Mark
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Mark L Graber MD FACP
> 
> Senior Fellow, RTI International
> 
> Professor Emeritus, SUNY Stony Brook
> 
> President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> 
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
> http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1
> or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
> 
> Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX
> 
> Moderator:David Meyers, Board Member, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine
> 
> To learn more about SIDM visit:
> http://www.improvediagnosis.org/
> <Healthcare Quarterly 2012.pdf>






Moderator: David Meyers, Board Member, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine


HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20160910/d28a3385/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list