Pat Croskerry1. 1. a Continuing Professional Development and Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine , Dalhousie University , Halifax , Canada.
Abstract
AIM: Recently, a growing awareness has developed of the extraordinary complexity of factors that influence the clinical reasoning underpinning the diagnostic process. The aim of the present report is to delineate these factors and suggest strategies for dealing more effectively with this complexity. METHOD: Six major clusters of factors are described here: (A) individual characteristics of the decision maker, (B) individual intellectual and cognitive styles, (C) ambient and homeostatic factors, (D) factors in the work environment including team factors, (E) characteristics of the medical condition, and (F) factors associated with the patient. Additional factors, such as health care systems, culture, politics, and others are also important. RESULTS: A review of the literature suggests that most clinicians trained under existing methods achieve a level of expertise presently referred to as "routine" or "classic." The results of studies of diagnostic failure, however, suggest that this level of expertise has proved insufficient. A growing literature suggests that more effective clinical decision might be achieved through adaptive reasoning, leading to enhanced levels of expertise and mastery. CONCLUSIONS: It is proposed here that adaptive expertise may be achieved through emphasizing additional features of the reasoning process: being aware of the inhibitors and facilitators of rationality; pursuing the standards of critical thinking; developing a comprehensive awareness of cognitive and affective biases and how to mitigate them; developing a similar depth and understanding of logic and its fallacies; engaging metacognitive processes such as reflection and mindfulness; and through approaches embracing creativity, lateral thinking, and innovation.
AIM: Recently, a growing awareness has developed of the extraordinary complexity of factors that influence the clinical reasoning underpinning the diagnostic process. The aim of the present report is to delineate these factors and suggest strategies for dealing more effectively with this complexity. METHOD: Six major clusters of factors are described here: (A) individual characteristics of the decision maker, (B) individual intellectual and cognitive styles, (C) ambient and homeostatic factors, (D) factors in the work environment including team factors, (E) characteristics of the medical condition, and (F) factors associated with the patient. Additional factors, such as health care systems, culture, politics, and others are also important. RESULTS: A review of the literature suggests that most clinicians trained under existing methods achieve a level of expertise presently referred to as "routine" or "classic." The results of studies of diagnostic failure, however, suggest that this level of expertise has proved insufficient. A growing literature suggests that more effective clinical decision might be achieved through adaptive reasoning, leading to enhanced levels of expertise and mastery. CONCLUSIONS: It is proposed here that adaptive expertise may be achieved through emphasizing additional features of the reasoning process: being aware of the inhibitors and facilitators of rationality; pursuing the standards of critical thinking; developing a comprehensive awareness of cognitive and affective biases and how to mitigate them; developing a similar depth and understanding of logic and its fallacies; engaging metacognitive processes such as reflection and mindfulness; and through approaches embracing creativity, lateral thinking, and innovation.
Authors: Regina Poss-Doering; Martina Kamradt; Anna Stuermlinger; Katharina Glassen; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Edith Andres; Michel Wensing Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.887