'Walking together': How relationships shape physicians' clinical reasoning.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical reasoning literature has increasingly considered context as an important influence on physicians' thinking. Physicians' relationships with patients, and their ongoing efforts to maintain these relationships, are important influences on how clinical reasoning is contextualised. The authors sought to understand how physicians' relationships with patients shaped their clinical reasoning. METHODS: Drawing from constructivist grounded theory, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians. Participants were asked to reflect on recent challenging clinical experiences, and probing questions were used to explore how participants attended to or leveraged relationships in conjunction with their clinical reasoning. Using constant comparison, three investigators coded transcripts, organising the data into codes and conceptual categories. The research team drew from these codes and categories to develop theory about the phenomenon of interest. RESULTS: The authors interviewed 15 primary care physicians with a range of experience in practice and identified patient agency as a central influence on participants' clinical reasoning. Participants drew from and managed relationships with patients while attending to patients' agency in three ways. First, participants described how contextualised illness constructions enabled them to individualise their approaches to diagnosis and management. Second, participants managed tensions between enacting their typical approaches to clinical problems and adapting their approaches to foster ongoing relationships with patients. Finally, participants attended to relationships with patients' caregivers, seeing these individuals' contributions as important influences on how their clinical reasoning could be enacted within patients' unique social contexts. CONCLUSION: Clinical reasoning is influenced in important ways by physicians' efforts to both draw from, and maintain, their relationships with patients and patients' caregivers. Such efforts create tensions between their professional standards of care and their orientations toward patient-centredness. These influences of relationships on physicians' clinical reasoning have important implications for training and clinical practice.

An Ecological Account of Clinical Reasoning.

PURPOSE: The prevailing paradigms of clinical reasoning conceptualize context either as noise that masks, or as external factors that influence, the internal cognitive processes involved in reasoning. The authors reimagined clinical reasoning through the lens of ecological psychology to enable new ways of understanding context-specific manifestations of clinical performance and expertise, and the bidirectional ways in which individuals and their environments interact. METHOD: The authors performed a critical review of foundational and current literature from the field of ecological psychology to explore the concepts of clinical reasoning and context as presented in the health professions education literature. RESULTS: Ecological psychology offers several concepts to explore the relationship between an individual and their context, including affordance, effectivity, environment, and niche. Clinical reasoning may be framed as an emergent phenomenon of the interactions between a clinician's effectivities and the affordances in the clinical environment. Practice niches are the outcomes of historical efforts to optimize practice and are both specialty-specific and geographically diverse. CONCLUSIONS: In this framework, context specificity may be understood as fundamental to clinical reasoning. This changes the authors' understanding of expertise, expert decision making, and definition of clinical error, as they depend on both the expert's actions and the context in which they acted. Training models incorporating effectivities and affordances might allow for antiableist formulations of competence that apply learners' abilities to solving problems in context. This could offer both new means of training and improve access to training for learners of varying abilities. Rural training programs and distance education can leverage technology to provide comparable experience to remote audiences but may benefit from additional efforts to integrate learners into local practice niches.

Assessment of Professionalism During the Emergency Medicine Clerkship Using the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in Emergency Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, a national consensus conference created the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in Emergency Medicine (NCAT-EM), a standardized end-of-shift assessment tool. We report the first large-scale analysis of professionalism concerns collected from May 2017 through December 2018 by a multisite consortium using the NCAT-EM. Our primary objective was to characterize the nature and frequency of professionalism concerns. Our secondary objective was to identify characteristics associated with giving or receiving a professionalism flag. METHODS: The consortium database includes assessments for all students on EM clerkships at participating sites. This report presents descriptive statistics about the frequency of different flags, the distribution of flags among different student categories, assessor and student characteristics, and distribution of global assessment scores on assessments citing concerns. We used Fisher's exact test to look for associations between the frequency of professionalism flags and the sex of the students and assessors and across student categories. We used logistic regression to look for relationships between professionalism concerns and global assessment scores as well as intent to apply in EM. RESULTS: We screened 6,768 assessments of 784 students by 719 assessors from 13 sites. After excluding assessments without flags and assessments with apparent data entry errors, we analyzed 57 (0.8%) assessments containing 79 flags. The most frequent flags were punctuality (25/79, 31.6%) and initiative (20/79, 25.3%). Few students received flags (42/784, 5.4%). Few assessors flagged concerns (41/719, 5.7%). We detected no correlation between the frequency of flags and whether a student was applying in EM or between the sex of students and assessors. Global scores of lower one-third appeared more often in assessments with a flag (30/57, 52.6% vs. 233/6,711, 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Only 5.4% of students received flags. Punctuality and initiative accounted for a majority of citations. Professionalism flags correlated strongly with lower global assessment scores.

Interleukin-6 improves infection identification when added to physician judgment during evaluation of potentially septic patients.

BACKGROUND: Identifying infection is critical in early sepsis screening. This study assessed whether biomarkers of endothelial activation and/or inflammation could improve identification of infection among Emergency Department (ED) patients with organ dysfunction. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational study at two urban, academic EDs, between June 2016 and December 2017. We included admitted adults with 1) two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and organ dysfunction, 2) systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, or 3) lactate ≥4.0 mmol/L. We excluded patients with trauma, transferred for intracranial hemorrhage, or without available blood samples. Treating ED physicians reported presence of infection (yes/no) at inpatient admission. Assays for angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-1, interleukin-6, and interleukin-8 were performed using ED blood samples. The primary outcome was infection, adjudicated by paired physician review. Using logistic regression, we compared the performance of physician judgment, biomarkers, and physician judgment-biomarkers combination to predict infection. Area under the curve (AUC) and AUC 95% confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrap procedure. RESULTS: Of 421 patients enrolled, 306 patients met final study criteria. Of these, 154(50.3%) patients had infectious etiologies. Physicians correctly discriminated infectious from non-infectious etiologies in 239 (78.1%). Physician judgment performed moderately when discriminating infection (AUC 0.78, 95% CI: 0.74-0.82) and outperformed the best biomarker model, interleukin-6 alone, (AUC 0.71, 0.66-0.76). Physician judgment improved when including interleukin-6 (AUC 0.84, 0.79-0.87), with modest AUC improvement: 0.06 (0.03-0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In ED patients with organ dysfunction, plasma interleukin-6 may improve infection discrimination when added to physician judgment.

Comparing Mortality Prediction by Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with Emergency Physician Judgment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) was proposed to identify infected patients at risk for mortality, an indication of sepsis, in nonintensive care unit settings. This study tests whether qSOFA improves physician prediction of mortality among infected Emergency Department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study of potentially septic ED patients, conducted between two urban, academic medical centers, from July 2016 to December 2017. We enrolled ED patients with two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and severe sepsis qualifying organ dysfunction, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, or lactate ≥ 4.0 mmol/L. Infectious etiology was adjudicated retrospectively by paired physician review. We excluded noninfected patients. Treating ED physicians submitted judgment for in-hospital mortality (0%-100%) at hospital admission, and qSOFA was calculated retrospectively using ED data. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 28 days. We used logistic regression to predict mortality using physician judgment, qSOFA, and combined physician judgment and qSOFA. To assess differences between models, 95% confidence intervals for area under the curve (AUC) were derived by bootstrapping with 1,000 iterations. RESULTS: Of 405 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 195 (48.1%) were determined to have infection and analyzed. Of analyzed patients, 16 (8.2%) suffered in-hospital mortality within 28 days. Analyzed patients had a mean age of 58.3 (SD 16.5) years and 78 (40%) were female. qSOFA alone (AUC 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.73) was not superior to unstructured physician judgment (AUC 0.80; 0.70-0.89) when predicting 28-day in-hospital mortality with mean AUC difference 0.17 (0.07-0.28) across bootstrapped datasets. Combining qSOFA with physician judgment (AUC 0.79; 0.69-0.89) did not improve performance compared with physician judgment alone. CONCLUSION: When predicting 28-day in-hospital mortality among infected ED patients, qSOFA did not outperform or improve physician judgment.