Show simple item record

Dealing with uncertainty in clinical reasoning: A threshold model and the roles of experience and task framing

dc.contributor.authorStojan, Jennifer N.
dc.contributor.authorDaniel, Michelle
dc.contributor.authorHartley, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorGruppen, Larry
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-07T20:26:25Z
dc.date.available2023-03-07 15:26:23en
dc.date.available2022-02-07T20:26:25Z
dc.date.issued2022-02
dc.identifier.citationStojan, Jennifer N.; Daniel, Michelle; Hartley, Sarah; Gruppen, Larry (2022). "Dealing with uncertainty in clinical reasoning: A threshold model and the roles of experience and task framing." Medical Education 56(2): 195-201.
dc.identifier.issn0308-0110
dc.identifier.issn1365-2923
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171624
dc.description.abstractIntroductionUncertainty is integral to clinical practice and clinical reasoning but has proven difficult to study and model. Little is known about how clinicians manage uncertainty. According to evidence‐based medicine theory, clinicians should utilise new information to reduce uncertainty until reaching action thresholds for further information gathering or treatment. We examined the impact of experience and task framing on uncertainty thresholds and the extent to which these thresholds guided clinical decisions. Finally, we sought to determine the impact of framing by having participants provide threshold responses as a range or as specific numbers.MethodsOne hundred sixty‐eight fourth‐year medical students, 93 residents and 72 faculty were presented a case of viral pneumonia with a suspected superimposed bacterial infection. Participants identified their testing and treatment thresholds with either a specific number or an inter‐threshold range of probabilities that would compel them to test further. Afterwards, they were told the patient had a 20% pre‐test probability of a superimposed infection and asked whether they would treat the patient with antibiotics, order additional testing or neither. Responses were compared with their previously stated threshold values to assess decision‐making consistency.ResultsTesting thresholds were 15.8%, 20.6% and 25.8%, treatment thresholds were 78.5%, 71.6% and 73.4% and threshold spans (difference between testing and treatment thresholds) were 62.7, 51 and 47.6 for students, residents and faculty, respectively. Sixty‐four percent of respondents made judgements consistent with their thresholds, 28% escalated their decision (doing more than their thresholds predicted) and 7.6% de‐escalated their decision (doing less than their thresholds predicted). Framing had an impact on both faculty and resident decisions and a larger impact on students.DiscussionThese findings help us understand how clinical reasoning and threshold determinations vary with clinical experience. As uncertainty can lead to unnecessary testing and cognitive discomfort, examining decision thresholds helps us ascertain how diagnostic and treatment decisions are made.Stojan et al. explore the role of uncertainty in clinical reasoning and demonstrate how testing and treatment threshold determinations vary with clinical experience.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherChurchill Livingstone
dc.titleDealing with uncertainty in clinical reasoning: A threshold model and the roles of experience and task framing
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEducation
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171624/1/medu14673.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171624/2/medu14673_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/medu.14673
dc.identifier.sourceMedical Education
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHawkins RC. The evidence based medicine approach to diagnostic testing: practicalities and limitations. Clin Biochem Rev. 2005; 26: 7 ‐ 18.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHan PKJ, Klein WMP, Arora NK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31 ( 6 ): 828 ‐ 838.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974; 185 ( 4157 ): 1124 ‐ 1131.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGerrity MS, Earp JAL, DeVellis RF, Light DW. Uncertainty and professional work: perceptions of physicians in clinical practice. Am J Sociol. 1992; 97 ( 4 ): 1022 ‐ 1051.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWray CM, Loo LK. The diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of medical uncertainty. J Grad Med Educ. 2015; 7 ( 4 ): 523 ‐ 527.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimpkin AL, Schwartzstein RM. Tolerating uncertainty—the next medical revolution? N Engl J Med. 2016; 375 ( 18 ): 1713 ‐ 1715.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFelder S, Mayrhofer T. Risk preferences: consequences for test and treatment thresholds and optimal cutoffs. Med Decis Making. 2014; 34 ( 1 ): 33 ‐ 41.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerlyne DE. Uncertainty and epistemic curiosity. Br J Psychol. 1962; 53 ( 1 ): 27 ‐ 34. papers3://publication/uuid/F065C792‐A2EA‐4AB6‐9D69‐1CF022AD8240
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLitman JA. Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Pers Individ Differ. 2008; 44 ( 7 ): 1585 ‐ 1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyche L, Epstein RM. Curiosity and medical education. Med Educ. 2011; 45 ( 7 ): 663 ‐ 668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03944
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHancock J, Mattick K. Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological well‐being in medical training: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2020; 54 ( 2 ): 125 ‐ 137.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKassirer JP. Our stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty. A cause of excessive testing. N Engl J Med. 1989; 320 ( 22 ): 1489 ‐ 1491.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WM, Haynes B. Evidence Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980; 302 ( 20 ): 1109 ‐ 1117.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHillen MA, Gutheil CM, Strout TD, Smets EMA, Han PKJ. Tolerance of uncertainty: conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2017; 180: 62 ‐ 75.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStojan JN, Daniel M, Morgan HK, Gruppen LD. A randomized cohort study of diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds in medical student clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2017; 92 ( 11S ): S43 ‐ S47.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDaniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, et al. Clinical reasoning assessment methods. Acad Med. 2019; 94 ( 6 ): 902 ‐ 912.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 211 ( 4481 ): 453 ‐ 458.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSiminoff LA, Fetting JH. Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making. 1989; 9 ( 4 ): 262 ‐ 271.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCook DA, Sherbino J, Durning SJ. Management reasoning. JAMA. 2018; 319 ( 22 ): 2267 ‐ 2268.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.