Framework and Schema are False Synonyms: Defining Terms to Improve Learning.

Clinical reasoning is an essential expertise of health care professionals that includes the complex cognitive processes that lead to diagnosis and management decisions. In order to optimally teach, learn, and assess clinical reasoning, it is imperative for teachers and learners to have a shared understanding of the language. Currently, educators use the terms schema and framework interchangeably but they are distinct concepts. In this paper, we offer definitions for schema and framework and use the high-stakes field of aviation to demonstrate the interplay of these concepts. We offer examples of framework and schema in the medical education field and discuss how a clear understanding of these concepts allows for greater intentionality when teaching and assessing clinical reasoning.

Overt and Occult Hypoxemia in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Progressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the Pao2 to the Fio2 (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously (ratio of the Spo2 to the Fio2 [S/F ratio]), but it is affected by skin color and occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients. Oxygen dissociation curves allow noninvasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFRs) but remain unproven. OBJECTIVES: Measure overt and occult hypoxemia using ePFR. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n = 5,319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hr), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score [NEWS] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA]). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test. RESULTS: Overt hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA]; 1.7 [Emory]; p < 0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA]; 0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (0.70 [both sites]) or SOFA (0.68 [UVA]; 0.65 [Emory]) and similar to S/F ratio (0.76 [UVA]; 0.70 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites]; p < 0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA]; 1.2 [Emory]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as clinicians' real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may reveal racial disparities attributable to occult hypoxemia.

The cognitive apprenticeship: advancing reasoning education by thinking aloud.

Teaching clinical reasoning has long challenged educators because it requires familiarity with reasoning concepts, experience with describing thinking, and comfort with exposing uncertainty and error. We propose that teachers adopt the cognitive apprenticeship model and a method of disclosing uncertainty known as intellectual streaking. These approaches reflect a shift in the educator's mindset from transmitting medical knowledge to broadcasting cognition. We provide several examples to guide the adoption of these strategies and make recommendations for teachers and training programs to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning.

Overt and occult hypoxemia in patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus disease 2019.

Background: Progressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously, but occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients because the technique is affected by skin color. Oxygen dissociation curves allow non-invasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFR) but this approach remains unproven. Research Question: Can ePFRs measure overt and occult hypoxemia? Study Design and methods: We retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n=5319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hours), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Sepsis-3). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROC). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test. Results: Overt hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA]; 1.7 [Emory]; p<0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA]; 0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (AUROC: 0.70 [UVA]; 0.70 [Emory]) or Sepsis-3 (AUROC: 0.68 [UVA]; 0.65 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites]; p<0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA]; 1.2 [Emory], p<0.01). Interpretation: The ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models like NEWS and Sepsis-3. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as clinicians’ real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may enable statistical modelling of racial disparities in outcomes attributable to occult hypoxemia.

REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning encompasses the process of data collection, synthesis, and interpretation to generate a working diagnosis and make management decisions. Situated cognition theory suggests that knowledge is relative to contextual factors, and clinical reasoning in urgent situations is framed by pressure of consequential, time-sensitive decision-making for diagnosis and management. These unique aspects of urgent clinical care may limit the effectiveness of traditional tools to assess, teach, and remediate clinical reasoning. METHODS: Using two validated frameworks, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians trained to remediate clinical reasoning and with experience in urgent clinical care encounters designed the novel Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool (REACT). REACT is a behaviorally anchored assessment tool scoring five domains used to provide formative feedback to learners evaluating patients during urgent clinical situations. A pilot study was performed to assess fourth-year medical students during simulated urgent clinical scenarios. Learners were scored using REACT by a separate, multidisciplinary group of clinician educators with no additional training in the clinical reasoning process. REACT scores were analyzed for internal consistency across raters and observations. RESULTS: Overall internal consistency for the 41 patient simulations as measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.86. A weighted kappa statistic was used to assess the overall score inter-rater reliability. Moderate reliability was observed at 0.56. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, REACT is the first tool designed specifically for formative assessment of a learner's clinical reasoning performance during simulated urgent clinical situations. With evidence of reliability and content validity, this tool guides feedback to learners during high-risk urgent clinical scenarios, with the goal of reducing diagnostic and management errors to limit patient harm.

The Diagnostic Medical Interview.

The diagnostic medical interview spans from the chief concern to the formation of a differential diagnosis. The patient's unique expression of their symptoms is the central component of this conversation. The interview should begin by eliciting the patient's chief concern with an open-ended question and then move through 3 nonlinear phases: open-ended elicitation, guided elicitation, and hypothesis-driven elicitation. Performing a comprehensive medical interview by obtaining background health information and the review of systems can help to expand or shrink the differential diagnosis. Clinicians should obtain information about specific symptoms and background information with a significant likelihood to narrow the differential diagnosis.