Understanding context specificity: the effect of contextual factors on clinical reasoning.

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

It Totally Possibly Could Be: How a Group of Military Physicians Reflect on Their Clinical Reasoning in the Presence of Contextual Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Contextual factors (eg, diagnostic suggestion and burnout) can affect physician clinical reasoning performance, leading to diagnostic error. Yet, contextual factors have only recently been studied and none of that work focused on how physicians appraise (ie, evaluate) the clinical situation as they reason. The purpose of this qualitative study was to use appraisal to describe the effect of contextual factors on clinical reasoning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Physicians (n = 25) either viewed two video cases or participated in two live scenarios, one with contextual factors and one without. Afterwards, they completed a "think-aloud" reflection while reviewing the cases. Transcribed think-alouds were coded for appraisal markers, comparing cases with and without contextual factors. RESULTS: When contextual factors were present, participants expressed more emotional evaluation and uncertainty about those emotions. Across all types of cases, participants expressed uncertainty about the case and assessed what "could" or "would" have gone differently. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that one major effect of contextual factors may be that they induce emotions, which may affect the process of clinical reasoning and diagnostic error. It also suggests that uncertainty may be common in clinical practice, and we should thus further explore its impact.

Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings.

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

Why health professions education needs functional linguistics: the power of 'stealth words'.

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

Clinical Reasoning in the Primary Care Setting: Two Scenario-Based Simulations for Residents and Attendings.

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