Durning, Steven J.

Abstract Purpose Management reasoning is a critical yet understudied phenomenon in clinical practice and medical education. The authors sought to empirically identify key features of management reasoning and construct a model describing the management reasoning process. Method In November 2020, 4 investigators each reviewed 10 video clips of simulated outpatient physician–patient encounters and used a coding form to document key features and insights related to management reasoning. The team used a constant comparative approach to distill 120 pages of raw observations into an 18-page list of management tasks, processes, and insights. The team then had a series of discussions to iteratively refine these findings into a parsimonious model of management reasoning. Results The investigators empirically identified 12 distinct features of management reasoning: contrasting and selection among multiple solutions; prioritization of patient, clinician, and system preferences and constraints; communication and shared decision making; ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the management plan; dynamic interplay among people, systems, and competing priorities; illness-specific knowledge; process knowledge; management scripts; clinician roles as patient teacher and salesperson; clinician–patient relationship; prognostication; and organization of the clinical encounter (sequencing and time management). Management scripts seemed to play a prominent and critical role. The model of management reasoning comprised 4 steps: instantiation of a management script, identifying (multiple) options and beginning to teach the patient, shared decision making, and ongoing monitoring and adjustment. This model also conceives 2 overarching features: that management reasoning is personalized to the patient and that it occurs between individuals rather than exclusively within the clinician’s mind. Conclusions Management scripts constitute a key feature of management reasoning, along with teaching patients about viable options, shared decision making, ongoing monitoring and adjustment, and personalization. Management reasoning seems to be constructed and negotiated between individuals rather than exclusively within the clinician.

Substantial research has illuminated the clinical reasoning processes involved in diagnosis (diagnostic reasoning). Far less is known about the processes entailed in patient management (management reasoning), including decisions about treatment, further testing, follow-up visits, and allocation of limited resources. The authors’ purpose is to articulate key differences between diagnostic and management reasoning, implications for health professions education, and areas of needed research. Diagnostic reasoning focuses primarily on classification (i.e., assigning meaningful labels to a pattern of symptoms, signs, and test results). Management reasoning involves negotiation of a plan and ongoing monitoring/adjustment of that plan. A diagnosis can usually be established as correct or incorrect, whereas there are typically multiple reasonable management approaches. Patient preferences, clinician attitudes, clinical contexts, and logistical constraints should not influence diagnosis, whereas management nearly always involves prioritization among such factors. Diagnostic classifications do not necessarily require direct patient interaction, whereas management prioritizations require communication and negotiation. Diagnoses can be defined at a single time point (given enough information), whereas management decisions are expected to evolve over time. Finally, management is typically more complex than diagnosis. Management reasoning may require educational approaches distinct from those used for diagnostic reasoning, including teaching distinct skills (e.g., negotiating with patients, tolerating uncertainty, and monitoring treatment) and developing assessments that account for underlying reasoning processes and multiple acceptable solutions. Areas of needed research include if and how cognitive processes differ for management and diagnostic reasoning, how and when management reasoning abilities develop, and how to support management reasoning in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT Background: Sleep deprivation and fatigue have been associated with medical errors, clinical performance decrements, and reduced quality of life for both practicing physicians and medical students. Greater understanding of the impact of sleep quantity on clinical reasoning could improve patient care. The purpose of our pilot study was to examine relationships between clinical reasoning (assessed by functional magnetic resonance imaging) and sleep time (measured in different ways by actigraphy) while answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from licensing agencies. Methods: Residents and faculty were administered a clinical reasoning exercise (MCQs from licensing bodies) during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Usual sleep patterns were sampled with actigraphy. Covariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between sleep duration (mean sleep, minimum sleep, maximum sleep) and brain activity during clinical reasoning (solving MCQs from licensing bodies). Results: The mean sleep time over the duration of monitoring for the group was 7.19 hours (SD 0.66) with a range of 6.1 to 8.1 hours (internal medicine faculty 7.1 hours, SD 0.41; internal medicine residents 7.27 hours, SD 0.92). There was a negative relationship between activation in the prefrontal cortex and minimum sleep time while reflecting on MCQs. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that the quantity of sleep can modulate brain activity while completing a clinically meaningful task that should be confirmed in larger studies. Our findings suggest that the construct of sleepiness may be more complex than appreciated by many and that the most important of these sleep measures in terms of outcomes remains to be determined.

AbstractIntroductionUnderstanding clinical reasoning is essential for patient care and medical education. Dual‐processing theory suggests that nonanalytic reasoning is an essential aspect of expertise; however, assessing nonanalytic reasoning is challenging because it is believed to occur on the subconscious level. This assumption makes concurrent verbal protocols less reliable assessment tools.MethodsFunctional magnetic resonance imaging was used to explore the neural basis of nonanalytic reasoning in internal medicine interns (novices) and board‐certified staff internists (experts) while completing United States Medical Licensing Examination and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple‐choice questions.ResultsThe results demonstrated that novices and experts share a common neural network in addition to nonoverlapping neural resources. However, experts manifested greater neural processing efficiency in regions such as the prefrontal cortex during nonanalytical reasoning.ConclusionsThese findings reveal a multinetwork system that supports the dual‐process mode of expert clinical reasoning during medical evaluation.