Effects of reflective practice on the accuracy of medical diagnoses.

CONTEXT: Reflective practice has been suggested to be an important instrument in improving clinical judgement and developing medical expertise. Empirical evidence supporting this suggestion, however, is absent. This paper reports on an experiment conducted to study the effects of reflective practice on diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Participants were 42 internal medicine residents in hospitals in 2 states in the northeast of Brazil. They diagnosed 16 clinical cases. The experiment employed a repeated measures design, with 2 independent variables: the complexity of clinical cases (simple or complex), and the reasoning approach induced to diagnose the case (participants were instructed to diagnose each case either through pattern recognition or reflective reasoning). The dependent variable was the accuracy of the diagnosis provided for each case. All participants participated in each of the 2 levels of both independent variables. RESULTS: A main effect of case complexity emerged. There was no statistically significant main effect of reflective practice. However, a significant interaction effect was found between case complexity and mode of processing (F[1,41] = 4.48, P < 0.05), indicating that although reflective practice did not make a difference to accuracy of diagnosis in simple cases, it had a positive effect when diagnosing complex cases. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective practice had a positive effect on diagnosis of complex, unusual cases. Non-analytical reasoning was shown to be as effective as reflective reasoning for diagnosing routine clinical cases. Findings support the idea that reflective practice may particularly improve diagnoses in situations of uncertainty and uniqueness, reducing diagnostic errors.

Influence of perceived difficulty of cases on physicians' diagnostic reasoning.

PURPOSE: While diagnosing problems, physicians frequently switch from nonanalytical to reflective reasoning. The conditions inducing doctors to reflect are largely unknown. The authors investigated whether a shift to reflection occurs when physicians perceive a case as problematic, and its effects on diagnostic accuracy. METHOD: The authors conducted two within-subjects experiments in Brazilian teaching hospitals in 2007. In Experiment 1, 20 medical residents diagnosed the same 10 clinical cases under two experimental conditions: a nonproblematic versus a problematic context. (The latter was created by informing participants that other physicians failed to diagnose the case previously.) In addition, participants judged whether a set of medical concepts were related to the case, and response time was measured. In Experiment 2, 18 residents diagnosed two cases while thinking aloud. The authors hypothesized that a case perceived as problematic would trigger reflection, leading to higher diagnostic accuracy, lower response times for recognizing concepts (Experiment 1), more time for diagnosing, and more elaborate think-aloud protocols (Experiment 2). RESULTS: Experiment 1: Accuracy of diagnosis was significantly higher within the problematic context, and participants were faster in deciding whether concepts were related to the case. The same cases were evaluated as more complex and less frequently seen. Experiment 2: Time spent on diagnosis, memory for case findings, and inferences derived from the cases were significantly higher within the problematic context. CONCLUSIONS: A context perceived as problematic induced reflection in the participating clinicians, as indicated by lower response times, more time spent on diagnosis, and more elaborate protocols. Reflective reasoning comprised more careful analysis of findings and alternative diagnoses, and increased diagnostic accuracy.