Conscious thought beats deliberation without attention in diagnostic decision-making: at least when you are an expert

Contrary to what common sense makes us believe, deliberation without attention has recently been suggested to produce better decisions in complex situations than deliberation with attention. Based on differences between cognitive processes of experts and novices, we hypothesized that experts make in fact better decisions after consciously thinking about complex problems whereas novices may benefit from deliberation-without-attention. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study among doctors and medical students. They diagnosed complex and routine problems under three conditions, an immediate-decision condition and two delayed conditions: conscious thought and deliberation-without-attention. Doctors did better with conscious deliberation when problems were complex, whereas reasoning mode did not matter in simple problems. In contrast, deliberation-without-attention improved novices’ decisions, but only in simple problems. Experts benefit from consciously thinking about complex problems; for novices thinking does not help in those cases

Four clinical concepts: a template for cognitive integration of clinical and basic sciences

Four clinical concepts symptoms, diagnosis, causes, and treatment(s) comprised an easily implementable organizing framework for both individual basic science lectures and for an “integration session” that incorporated clinical and discipline-based foundational sciences. According to most students (\u3e80 %) surveyed, this approach facilitated a novel and more meaningful appreciation of basic science in a clinical context, and most (78 %) said they intended to apply this organizing framework in their future learning. Given the enthusiasm of our students for this approach, we intend to organize more sessions around this template with a more rigorous quantitative assessment of our template for fostering cognitive integration

Influence of perceived difficulty of cases on student osteopaths’ diagnostic reasoning: a cross sectional study

Abstract Background Diagnostic reasoning refers to the cognitive processes by which clinicians formulate diagnoses. Despite the implications for patient safety and professional identity, research on diagnostic reasoning in osteopathy remains largely theoretical. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of perceived task difficulty on the diagnostic reasoning of students osteopaths. Methods Using a single-blinded, cross sectional study design, sixteen final year pre-registration osteopathy students diagnosed two standardized cases under two context conditions (complex versus control). Context difficulty was manipulated via verbal manipulation and case order was randomized and counterbalanced across subjects to ensure that each case was diagnosed evenly under both conditions (i.e. half of the subjects performed either case A or B first). After diagnosis, participants were presented with items (literal, inferred and filler) designed to represent analytical and non-analytical reasoning. Response time and error rate for each item were measured. A repeated measures analysis of variance (concept type x context) was performed to identify differences across conditions and make inferences on diagnostic reasoning. Results Participants made significantly more errors when judging literal concepts and took significantly less time to recognize filler concepts in the complex context. No significant difference in ability to judge inferred concepts across contexts was found. Conclusions Although speculative and preliminary, our findings suggest the perception of complexity led to an increased reliance on analytical reasoning at the detriment of non-analytical reasoning. To reduce the associated cognitive load, osteopathic educational institutions could consider developing the intuitive diagnostic capabilities of pre-registration students. Postgraduate mentorship opportunities could be considered to enhance the diagnostic reasoning of professional osteopaths, particularly recent graduates. Further research exploring the influence of expertise is required to enhance the validity of this study