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 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

Exploring implications of context specificity and cognitive load in residents

Introduction: Context specificity (CS) refers to the variability in clinical reasoning across different presentations of the same diagnosis. Cognitive load (CL) refers to limitations in working memory that may impact clinicians’ clinical reasoning. CL might be one of the factors that lead to CS. Although CL during clinical reasoning would be expected to be higher in internal medicine residents, CL’s effect on CS in residents has not been studied. Methods: Internal medicine residents watched a series of three cases portrayed on videos. Following each case, participants filled out a post-encounter form and completed a validated measure of CL. Results: Fourteen residents completed all three cases. Across cases, self-reported CL was relatively high and there were small to moderate correlations between CL and performance in clinical reasoning (r’s = .43, -.33, -.23). In terms of changing CL across cases, the correlations between change in CL and change in total performance were statistically significantly only in moving from case 1 to case 2 (r = -.54, p =.05). Discussion and Conclusion: Residents self-reported measurements of CL were relatively high across cases. However, higher CL was not consistently associated with poorer performance. We did observe the expected associations when looking at case-to-case change in CL. This relationship warrants further study

Contextual factors and clinical reasoning: differences in diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning in board certified versus resident physicians

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background The impact of context on the complex process of clinical reasoning is not well understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework and videos to provide the same contextual “stimulus” to all participants, we examined the relationship between specific contextual factors on diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning accuracy in board certified internists versus resident physicians. Methods Each participant viewed three videotaped clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses in internal medicine. We explicitly modified the context to assess its impact on performance (patient and physician contextual factors). Patient contextual factors, including English as a second language and emotional volatility, were portrayed in the videos. Physician participant contextual factors were self-rated sleepiness and burnout.. The accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning was compared with covariates using Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman Rho’s correlations as appropriate. Results Fifteen board certified internists and 10 resident physicians participated from 2013 to 2014. Accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning did not differ between groups despite residents reporting significantly higher rates of sleepiness (mean rank 20.45 vs 8.03, U = 0.5, p < .001) and burnout (mean rank 20.50 vs 8.00, U = 0.0, p < .001). Accuracy of diagnosis and treatment were uncorrelated (r = 0.17, p = .65). In both groups, the proportion scoring correct responses for treatment was higher than the proportion scoring correct responses for diagnosis. Conclusions This study underscores that specific contextual factors appear to impact clinical reasoning performance. Further, the processes of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, although related, may not be interchangeable. This raises important questions about the impact that contextual factors have on clinical reasoning and provides insight into how clinical reasoning processes in more authentic settings may be explained by situated cognition theory

Clinical reasoning tasks and resident physicians: What do they reason about?

© 2016 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Purpose A framework of clinical reasoning tasks thought to occur in a clinical encounter was recently developed. It proposes that diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning comprise 24 tasks. The authors of this current study used this framework to investigate what internal medicine residents reason about when they approach straightforward clinical cases. Method Participants viewed three video-recorded clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses. After each video, participants completed a post encounter form and think-aloud protocol. Two authors analyzed transcripts from the think-aloud protocols using a constant comparative approach. They conducted iterative coding of the utterances, classifying each according to the framework of clinical reasoning tasks. They evaluated the type, number, and sequence of tasks the residents used. Results Ten residents participated in the study in 2013-2014. Across all three cases, the residents employed 14 clinical reasoning tasks. Nearly all coded tasks were associated with framing the encounter or diagnosis. The order in which residents used specific tasks varied. The average number of tasks used per case was as follows: Case 1, 4.4 (range 1-10); Case 2, 4.6 (range 1-6); and Case 3, 4.7 (range 1-7). The residents used some tasks repeatedly; the average number of task utterances was 11.6, 13.2, and 14.7 for, respectively, Case 1, 2, and 3. Conclusions Results suggest that the use of clinical reasoning tasks occurs in a varied, not sequential, process. The authors provide suggestions for strengthening the framework to more fully encompass the spectrum of reasoning tasks that occur in residents\u27 clinical encounters

Context and clinical reasoning

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.Introduction Studies have shown that a physician’s clinical reasoning performance can be influenced by contextual factors. We explored how the clinical reasoning performance of medical students was impacted by contextual factors in order to expand upon previous findings in resident and board certified physicians. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework, our aim was to evaluate the verbalized clinical reasoning processes of medical students in order to describe what impact the presence of contextual factors has on their reasoning performance. Methods Seventeen medical student participants viewed three video recordings of clinical encounters portraying straightforward diagnostic cases in internal medicine with explicit contextual factors inserted. Participants completed a computerized post-encounter form as well as a think-aloud protocol. Three authors analyzed verbatim transcripts from the think-aloud protocols using a constant comparative approach. After iterative coding, utterances were analyzed and grouped into categories and themes. Results Six categories and ten associated themes emerged, which demonstrated overlap with findings from previous studies in resident and attending physicians. Four overlapping categories included emotional disturbances, behavioural inferences about the patient, doctor-patient relationship, and difficulty with closure. Two new categories emerged to include anchoring and misinterpretation of data. Discussion The presence of contextual factors appeared to impact clinical reasoning performance in medical students. The data suggest that a contextual factor can be innate to the clinical scenario, consistent with situated cognition theory. These findings build upon our understanding of clinical reasoning performance from both a theoretical and practical perspective.This project was supported, in part, by an unrestricted educational grant from MedU/iInTime as well as local intramural grant funding

Clinical Reasoning Tasks and Resident Physicians: What Do They Reason About?

© 2016 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Purpose A framework of clinical reasoning tasks thought to occur in a clinical encounter was recently developed. It proposes that diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning comprise 24 tasks. The authors of this current study used this framework to investigate what internal medicine residents reason about when they approach straightforward clinical cases. Method Participants viewed three video-recorded clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses. After each video, participants completed a post encounter form and think-aloud protocol. Two authors analyzed transcripts from the think-aloud protocols using a constant comparative approach. They conducted iterative coding of the utterances, classifying each according to the framework of clinical reasoning tasks. They evaluated the type, number, and sequence of tasks the residents used. Results Ten residents participated in the study in 2013-2014. Across all three cases, the residents employed 14 clinical reasoning tasks. Nearly all coded tasks were associated with framing the encounter or diagnosis. The order in which residents used specific tasks varied. The average number of tasks used per case was as follows: Case 1, 4.4 (range 1-10); Case 2, 4.6 (range 1-6); and Case 3, 4.7 (range 1-7). The residents used some tasks repeatedly; the average number of task utterances was 11.6, 13.2, and 14.7 for, respectively, Case 1, 2, and 3. Conclusions Results suggest that the use of clinical reasoning tasks occurs in a varied, not sequential, process. The authors provide suggestions for strengthening the framework to more fully encompass the spectrum of reasoning tasks that occur in residents\u27 clinical encounters