Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise.

RATIONALE: Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. METHOD: We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. RESULTS: We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

Validity Evidence of A Screening Tool for Early Detection of Clinical Crisis-Related Anxiety Amongst Medical Students.

Construct: Psychological distress among students is a growing concern in medical education, even more so with the advent of COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety is among students' mental health issues. High and persistent anxiety has many negative impacts on students' academic and personal life. Early detection is essential for timely intervention. Background: Currently, medical student anxiety is assessed using tools primarily designed for psychiatric purposes. Despite their excellent validity evidence, these tools contain sensitive items and do not explore stressors related to clinical activities. There is a need for contextualized tools to better identify anxiety-provoking factors specific to the medical education environment. Approach: We previously developed the Crisis Experience Rating Scale (CERS-7), a short screening tool to identify early on anxious students participating in clinical activities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study sought to produce further validity evidence for the CERS-7. Medical students in their clinical years at two Swiss and one French medical school, all involved in COVID-19 clinical activity during the second wave of the pandemic, completed the CERS-7 and the State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-A), the best known and widely used tool to measure for general anxiety. We evaluated internal structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and relation to other variables using linear regression (LR) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with thresholds defined using the Youden index. Findings: There were 372 participants. CFA confirmed the two-factor structure of the CERS-7 scale from first-wave dataset. The CERS-7 total scale and subscales demonstrated validity evidence in relationship to the STAI-A scores and categories. A CERS-7 total scale score < 27.5 identified 93% of severely anxious students. Conclusion: The CERS-7 produces reliable scores to use for monitoring anxiety status when assigning students to clinical settings as well as for improving training conditions during clinical crisis.

A Didactic Escape Game for Emergency Medicine Aimed at Learning to Work as a Team and Making Diagnoses: Methodology for Game Development.

BACKGROUND: In the health care environment, teamwork is paramount, especially when referring to patient safety. We are interested in recent and innovative solutions such as escape games, which is a type of adventure game that may be highly useful as an educational tool, potentially combining good communication skills with successful gamification. They involve teams of 5 to 10 individuals who are "locked" in the same room and must collaborate to solve puzzles while under pressure from a timer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to describe the steps involved in creating and implementing an educational escape game. This tool can then be put into service or further developed by trainers who wish to use it for learning interprofessional collaboration. Therefore, we started with an experience of creating an educational escape game for emergency medicine teams. METHODS: We chose to develop an educational escape game by using 6 successive steps. First, we built a team. Second, we chose the pedagogical objectives. Third, we gamified (switched from objectives to scenario). Next, we found the human and material resources needed. Thereafter, we designed briefing and debriefing. Lastly, we tested the game. RESULTS: By following these 6 steps, we created the first ambulant educational escape game that teaches people, or nurses, doctors, and paramedics, working in emergency medicine to work as a team. CONCLUSIONS: From a pedagogic point of view, this game may be a good tool for helping people in multidisciplinary fields (medical and paramedical teams) to learn how to work collaboratively and to communicate as a group. Above all, it seems to be an innovative tool that complements medical simulation-based learning and thus consolidates traditional education.

And if we had to do it all over again, would we send medical students to the emergency departments during a pandemic? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 outbreak.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased staffing needs in emergency departments. The question quickly arose as to whether it was appropriate to offer medical students the opportunity to assist this staff. The dilemma stems in part from the potential impact on their psychological well-being as well as their academic and clinical performances. We sought to determine the level of anxiety of medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak, and whether it was higher among the students who chose to return to the clinical setting, especially in first-line units (i.e., emergency departments and resuscitation units). In May 2020, 1180/1502 (78.5%) undergraduate medical students at Strasbourg Medical School (France) completed a questionnaire assessing their anxiety and clinical experience. A 2018 cohort of undergraduate medical students served as the baseline. The 2020 COVID cohort had higher rates of anxiety than the 2018 cohort. This difference was specifically observed in the students who chose not to return to the clinical setting during the crisis (N = 684, 59%). At linear regression, the main factors associated with anxiety were gender (p < 0.005) and perceived clinical activity personal conditions (p < 0.001). Employment site, including COVID first-line units, was not correlated with anxiety. Working in the clinical setting during the COVID-19 outbreak is not a risk factor for anxiety in medical students. Instead, it is an active coping strategy, suggesting that there are no barriers to allowing students to return to clinical settings during a pandemic, including first-line units, in terms of their psychological well-being.

Does burnout affect clinical reasoning? An observational study among residents in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Burnout results from excessive demands at work. Caregivers suffering from burnout show a state of emotional exhaustion, leading them to distance themselves from their patients and to become less efficient in their work. While some studies have shown a negative impact of burnout on physicians' clinical reasoning, others have failed to demonstrate any such impacts. To better understand the link between clinical reasoning and burnout, we carried out a study looking for an association between burnout and clinical reasoning in a population of general practice residents. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study among residents in general practice in 2017 and 2019. Clinical reasoning performance was assessed using a script concordance test (SCT). The Maslach Burnout Inventory for Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used to determine burnout status in both original standards of Maslach's burnout inventory manual (conventional approach) and when individuals reported high emotional exhaustion in combination with high depersonalization or low personal accomplishment compared to a norm group ("emotional exhaustion +1" approach). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine residents were included. The participants' mean SCT score was 76.44% (95% CI: 75.77-77.10). In the conventional approach, 126 residents (63.31%) had no burnout, 37 (18.59%) had mild burnout, 23 (11.56%) had moderate burnout, and 13 (6.53%) had severe burnout. In the "exhaustion + 1" approach, 38 residents had a burnout status (19.10%). We found no significant correlation between burnout status and SCT scores either for conventional or "exhaustion + 1" approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our data seem to indicate that burnout status has no significant impact on clinical reasoning. However, one speculation is that SCT mostly examines the clinical reasoning process's analytical dimension, whereas emotions are conventionally associated with the intuitive dimension. We think future research might aim to explore the impact of burnout on intuitive clinical reasoning processes.

Misdiagnosis and failure to diagnose in emergency care: Causes and empathy as a solution.

Diagnostic error is the most frequent cause of allegations of negligence in emergency care in the United States and is estimated to contribute to the death of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide each year. In this special contribution, we elucidate the cognitive mechanisms that emergency physicians use to make decisions and identify how these mechanisms can become sources of diagnostic error. The discussion centers on the appraisal of proposed methods to reduce the risk of diagnostic error, including debiasing strategies and a brief discussion of the theoretical basis for interventions to improve clinician empathy.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Construct and predictive validity of the Strength of Motivation for Medical School-Revised (SMMS-R) questionnaire: a French validation study.

Motivation is a major indicator of students' learning behaviors. Therefore, researchers require consistent and valid instruments to assess students' motivation. Consequently, motivation has been an important topic in medical education research for the last decade. The present study evaluated the construct and predictive validities of the French version of the Strength of Motivation for Medical School-Revised questionnaire (SMMS-R-FR). Our sample comprised 372 students at three French-speaking medical schools, who filled in the SMMS-R-FR and the Revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R2-SPQ). Results confirmed the three-factor structure of the original SMMS-R questionnaire. Reliabilities were good for the Total Strength of Motivation scale, moderate for the Willingness to Sacrifice and Readiness to Start subscales, and poor (but still acceptable) for the Persistence subscale. Both Total Strength of Motivation and Readiness to Start positively predicted a deep learning approach and negatively predicted a surface learning approach, while Willingness to Sacrifice positively predicted a deep learning approach and Persistence negatively predicted a surface learning approach. Our results both support the SMMS-R- FR's suitability as a tool for measuring motivation in medical students, and suggest that it could be used to guide the development of educational interventions to strengthen motivation.

Impact of emergency physician experience on decision-making in patients with suspected community-acquired pneumonia and undergoing systematic thoracic CT scan.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the impact of a thoracic CT scan on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) diagnosis and patient management varies according to emergency physician's experience (≤10 vs >10 years). METHODS: Early thoracic CT Scan for Community-Acquired Pneumonia at the Emergency Department is an interventional study conducted from November 2011 to January 2013 in four French emergency departments, and included suspected patients with CAP. We analysed changes in emergency physician CAP diagnosis classification levels before and after CT scan; and their agreement with an adjudication committee. We performed univariate analysis to determine the factors associated with modifying the diagnosis classification level to be consistent with the radiologist's CT scan interpretation. RESULTS: 319 suspected patients with CAP and 136 emergency physicians (75% less experienced with ≤10 years, 25% with >10 years of experience) were included. The percentage of patients whose classification was modified to become consistent with CT scan radiologist's interpretation was higher among less-experienced than experienced emergency physicians (54.2% vs 40.2%; p=0.02). In univariate analysis, less emergency physician experience was the only factor associated with changing a classification to be consistent with the CT scan radiologist's interpretation (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.10, p=0.04). After CT scan, the agreement between emergency physicians and adjudication committee was moderate for less-experienced emergency physicians and slight for experienced emergency physicians (k=0.457 and k=0.196, respectively). After CT scan, less-experienced emergency physicians modified patient management significantly more than experienced emergency physicians (36.1% vs 21.7%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, less-experienced emergency physicians were more likely to accurately modify their CAP diagnosis and patient management based on thoracic CT scan than more experienced emergency physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01574066.

Does the unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation maintain the participants' perceived self-efficacy? An observational prospective study with medical students.

BACKGROUND: The death of a simulated patient is controversial. Some educators feel that having a manikin die is prejudicial to learning; others feel it is a way of better preparing students for these situations. Perceived self-efficacy (PSE) reflects a person's perception of their ability to carry out a task. A high PSE is necessary to manage a task efficiently. In this study, we measured the impact of the death of a simulated patient on medical students' perceived self-efficacy concerning their ability to cope with a situation of cardiac arrest. METHODS: We carried out a single-centre, observational, prospective study. In group 1 (n = 27), pre-graduate medical students were warned of the possible death of the manikin; group 2 students were not warned (n = 29). The students' PSE was measured at the end of the simulated situation and after the debriefing. RESULTS: The PSE of the two groups was similar before the debriefing (p = 0.41). It had significantly progressed at the end of the debriefing (p < 0,001). No significant difference was noted between the 2 groups (p = 0.382). CONCLUSIONS: The simulated death of the manikin did not have a negative impact on the students' PSE, whether or not they had been warned of the possible occurrence of such an event. Our study helps defend the position which supports the inclusion of unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation setting.

A Novel Approach to Study Medical Decision Making in the Clinical Setting: The "Own-point-of-view" Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Making diagnostic and therapeutic decisions is a critical activity among physicians. It relies on the ability of physicians to use cognitive processes and specific knowledge in the context of a clinical reasoning. This ability is a core competency in physicians, especially in the field of emergency medicine where the rate of diagnostic errors is high. Studies that explore medical decision making in an authentic setting are increasing significantly. They are based on the use of qualitative methods that are applied at two separate times: 1) a video recording of the subject's actual activity in an authentic setting and 2) an interview with the subject, supported by the video recording. Traditionally, activity is recorded from an "external perspective"; i.e., a camera is positioned in the room in which the consultation takes place. This approach has many limits, both technical and with respect to the validity of the data collected. OBJECTIVES: The article aims at 1) describing how decision making is currently being studied, especially from a qualitative standpoint, and the reasons why new methods are needed, and 2) reporting how we used an original, innovative approach to study decision making in the field of emergency medicine and findings from these studies to guide further the use of this method. The method consists in recording the subject's activity from his own point of view, by fixing a microcamera on his temple or the branch of his glasses. An interview is then held on the basis of this recording, so that the subject being interviewed can relive the situation, to facilitate the explanation of his reasoning with respect to his decisions and actions. RESULTS: We describe how this method has been used successfully in investigating medical decision making in emergency medicine. We provide details on how to use it optimally, taking into account the constraints associated with the practice of emergency medicine and the benefits in the study of clinical reasoning. CONCLUSION: The "own-point-of-view" video technique is a promising method to study clinical decision making in emergency medicine. It is a powerful tool to stimulate recall and help physicians make their reasoning explicit, thanks to a greater psychological immersion.

Are health sciences students who sit at the back of the lecture hall not motivated?

OBJECTIVES: Motivation is a crucial determinant in learning and performance. It would therefore be advantageous for teachers to use strategies intended to have a positive effect on their students' motivation. With this in mind, the first thing to do is to identify students with motivation problems, which can be a complex exercise when there are large groups. We wanted to explore whether the place chosen by health sciences students in a classroom or lecture hall showed any correlation with their motivation. METHODS: We carried out a multicentre, prospective, observational study of 596 health sciences students in 9 training institutes. The students filled in a self-administered questionnaire to measure the different components of their motivation to take part in a mandatory lesson. These components were correlated with the row in which they sat in a classroom or lecture hall, when they had a free choice of where to sit. RESULTS: Apart from extrinsic motivation, all the components of motivation for the health sciences students recruited were significantly correlated with the row. The further the students were from the first row, the less they were motivated. CONCLUSION: In accordance with teachers' views, the level of motivation of the students was less the further their position in a classroom or lecture hall was from the first row. A student's position in the classroom could provide a useful indicator for teachers looking to target their motivational strategies for students with potential motivation problems in the environment, where identifying student motivation levels is impossible.