IntroductionWe describe the development and implementation of tools medical educators or researchers can use for developing or analyzing residents' through attending physicians' clinical reasoning in an outpatient clinic setting. The resource includes two scenario-based simulations (i.e., diabetes, angina), implementation support materials, an open-ended postencounter form, and a think-aloud reflection protocol.MethodWe designed two scenarios with potential case ambiguity and contextual factors to add complexity for studying clinical reasoning. The scenarios are designed to be used prior to an open-ended written exercise and a think-aloud reflection to elicit reasoning and reflection. We report on their implementation in a research context but developed them to be used in both educational and research settings.ResultsTwelve physicians (five interns, three residents, and four attendings) considered between three and six differential diagnoses (M = 4.0) for the diabetes scenario and between three and nine differentials (M = 4.3) for angina. In think-aloud reflections, participants reconsidered their thinking between zero and 14 times (M = 3.5) for diabetes and zero and 11 times (M = 3.3) for angina. Cognitive load scores ranged from 4 to 8 (out of 10; M = 6.2) for diabetes and 5 to 8 (M = 6.6) for angina. Participants rated scenario authenticity between 4 and 5 (out of 5).DiscussionThe potential case content ambiguity, along with the contextual factors (e.g., patient suggesting alternative diagnoses), provides a complex environment in which to explore or teach clinical reasoning.

BackgroundThe literature suggests that affect, higher-level cognitive processes (e.g. decision-making), and agency (the capacity to produce an effect) are important for reasoning; however, we do not know how these factors respond to context. Using situated cognition theory as a framework, and linguistic tools as a method, we explored the effects of context specificity [a physician seeing two patients with identical presentations (symptoms and findings), but coming to two different diagnoses], hypothesizing more linguistic markers of cognitive load in the presence of contextual factors (e.g. incorrect diagnostic suggestion).MethodsIn this comparative and exploratory study, 64 physicians each completed one case with contextual factors and one without. Transcribed think-aloud reflections were coded by Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software for markers of affect, cognitive processes, and first-person pronouns. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to inferentially compare these LIWC categories between cases with and without contextual factors. This was followed by exploratory descriptive analysis of subcategories.ResultsAs hypothesized, participants used more affective and cognitive process markers in cases with contextual factors and more I/me pronouns in cases without. These differences were statistically significant for cognitive processing words but not affective and pronominal words. Exploratory analysis revealed more negative emotions, cognitive processes of insight, and third-person pronouns in cases with contextual factors.ConclusionsThis study exposes linguistic differences arising from context specificity. These results demonstrate the value of a situated cognition view of patient encounters and reveal the utility of linguistic tools for examining clinical reasoning.

BackgroundSituated 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsMultivariate 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 < 0.001, $\eta _{\rm p}^2 = 0.72$], with follow-up univariate analyses indicating that participants performed statistically significantly worse in cases with contextual factors on five of six items. There were no significant differences in diabetes cases between conditions. There was no statistically significant difference in cognitive load between conditions.ConclusionsUsing 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.