The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts. A group of 21 experienced general practitioners were asked to complete the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) and a set of 10 clinical reasoning problems (CRPs) to evaluate their clinical reasoning. Both the DTI and the CRPs were scored, and the CRP response patterns of each GP examined in terms of the number and type of errors contained in them. Analysis of these data showed that six GPs were able to reach the correct diagnosis using significantly less clinical information than their colleagues. These GPs also made significantly fewer interpretation errors but scored lower on both the DTI and the CRPs. Additionally, this analysis showed that more than 20% of misdiagnoses occurred despite no errors being made in the identification and interpretation of relevant clinical information. These results indicate that these six GPs diagnose efficiently, effectively and accurately using relatively few clinical data and can therefore be classified as diagnostic experts. They also indicate that a major cause of misdiagnoses is failure to properly integrate clinical data. We suggest that increased emphasis on this step in the reasoning process should prove beneficial to the development of clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students.

Fault diagnostics and supervised testing : How fault diagnostic tools can be proactive?

The topic of fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) is studied from the perspective of proactive testing. Unlike most research focus in the diagnosis area in which system outputs are analyzed for diagnosis purposes, in this paper the focus is on the other side of the problem: manipulating system inputs for better diagnosis reasoning. In other words, the question of how diagnostic mechanisms can direct system inputs for better diagnosis analysis is addressed here. It is shown how the problem can be formulated as decision making problem coupled with a Bayesian Network based diagnostic mechanism. The developed mechanism is applied to the problem of supervised testing in HVAC systems.

Clinical reasoning: The relative contribution of identification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the types of errors in clinical reasoning that contribute to poor diagnostic performance at different levels of medical training and experience. Three cohorts of subjects, second- and fourth- (final) year medical students and a group of general practitioners, completed a set of clinical reasoning problems. The responses of those whose scores fell below the 25th centile were analysed to establish the stage of the clinical reasoning process - identification of relevant information, interpretation or hypothesis generation - at which most errors occurred and whether this was dependent on problem difficulty and level of medical experience. Results indicate that hypothesis errors decrease as expertise increases but that identification and interpretation errors increase. This may be due to inappropriate use of pattern recognition or to failure of the knowledge base. Furthermore, although hypothesis errors increased in line with problem difficulty, identification and interpretation errors decreased. A possible explanation is that as problem difficulty increases, subjects at all levels of expertise are less able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant clinical features and so give equal consideration to all information contained within a case. It is concluded that the development of clinical reasoning in medical students throughout the course of their pre-clinical and clinical education may be enhanced by both an analysis of the clinical reasoning process and a specific focus on each of the stages at which errors commonly occur.

The association between student characteristics and the development of clinical reasoning in a graduate-entry, PBL medical programme

This study sought to assess the extent to which the entry characteristics of students in a graduate-entry medical programme predict the subsequent development of clinical reasoning ability. Subjects comprised 290 students voluntarily recruited from three successive cohorts of the University of Queensland's MBBS Programme. Clinical reasoning was measured once a year over a period of three years using two methods, a set of 10 Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs) and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI). Data on gender, age at entry into the programme, nature of primary degree, scores on selection criteria (written examination plus interview) and academic performance in the first two years of the programme were recorded for each student, and their association with clinical reasoning skill analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis indicated significant associations between CRP score, gender and primary degree with a significant but small association between DTI and interview score. Stage of progression through the programme was also an important predictor of performance on both indicators. Subsequent multivariate analysis suggested that female gender is a positive predictor of CRP score independently of the nature of a subject's primary degree and stage of progression through the programme, although these latter two variables are interdependent. Positive predictors of clinical reasoning skill are stage of progression through the MBBS programme, female gender and interview score. Although the nature of a student's primary degree is important in the early years of the programme, evidence suggests that by graduation differences between students' clinical reasoning skill due to this factor have been resolved.

Assessing clinical reasoning: A method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum

The aim of this study was to develop and trial a method to monitor the evolution of clinical reasoning in a PBL curriculum that is suitable for use in a large medical school. Termed Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs), it is based on the notion that clinical reasoning is dependent on the identification and correct interpretation of certain critical clinical features. Each problem consists of a clinical scenario comprising presentation, history and physical examination. Based on this information, subjects are asked to nominate the two most likely diagnoses and to list the clinical features that they considered in formulating their diagnoses, indicating whether these features supported or opposed the nominated diagnoses. Students at different levels of medical training completed a set of 10 CRPs as well as the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess reasoning style. Responses were scored against those of a reference group of general practitioners. Results indicate that the CRPs are an easily administered, reliable and valid assessment of clinical reasoning, able to successfully monitor its development throughout medical training. Consequently, they can be employed to assess clinical reasoning skill in individual students and to evaluate the success of undergraduate medical schools in providing effective tuition in clinical reasoning.