Reframing context specificity in team diagnosis using the theory of distributed cognition.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnosis Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2022-0100
James G Boyle, Matthew R Walters, Susan Jamieson, Steven J Durning
{"title":"Reframing context specificity in team diagnosis using the theory of distributed cognition.","authors":"James G Boyle,&nbsp;Matthew R Walters,&nbsp;Susan Jamieson,&nbsp;Steven J Durning","doi":"10.1515/dx-2022-0100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Context specificity refers to the vexing phenomenon whereby a physician can see two patients with the same presenting complaint, identical history and physical examination findings, but due to specific situational (contextual) factors arrives at two different diagnostic labels. Context specificity remains incompletely understood and undoubtedly leads to unwanted variance in diagnostic outcomes. Previous empirical work has demonstrated that a variety of contextual factors impacts clinical reasoning. These findings, however, have largely focused on the individual clinician; here we broaden this work to reframe context specificity in relation to clinical reasoning by an internal medicine rounding team through the lens of Distributed Cognition (DCog). In this model, we see how meaning is distributed amongst the different members of a rounding team in a dynamic fashion that evolves over time. We describe four different ways in which context specificity plays out differently in team-based clinical care than for a single clinician. While we use examples from internal medicine, we believe that the concepts we present apply equally to other specialties and fields in health care.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":"10 3","pages":"235-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2022-0100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Context specificity refers to the vexing phenomenon whereby a physician can see two patients with the same presenting complaint, identical history and physical examination findings, but due to specific situational (contextual) factors arrives at two different diagnostic labels. Context specificity remains incompletely understood and undoubtedly leads to unwanted variance in diagnostic outcomes. Previous empirical work has demonstrated that a variety of contextual factors impacts clinical reasoning. These findings, however, have largely focused on the individual clinician; here we broaden this work to reframe context specificity in relation to clinical reasoning by an internal medicine rounding team through the lens of Distributed Cognition (DCog). In this model, we see how meaning is distributed amongst the different members of a rounding team in a dynamic fashion that evolves over time. We describe four different ways in which context specificity plays out differently in team-based clinical care than for a single clinician. While we use examples from internal medicine, we believe that the concepts we present apply equally to other specialties and fields in health care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
运用分布式认知理论重构团队诊断中的情境特异性。
情境特异性指的是一种令人烦恼的现象,即医生可以看到两个具有相同主诉、相同病史和体格检查结果的患者,但由于特定的情境(语境)因素而得出两种不同的诊断标签。背景特异性仍然不完全了解,无疑会导致诊断结果出现不必要的差异。以往的实证研究表明,多种背景因素影响临床推理。然而,这些发现主要集中在个体临床医生身上;在这里,我们扩大了这项工作,通过分布式认知(DCog)的镜头,重新构建与临床推理相关的上下文特异性。在这个模型中,我们看到意义是如何在一个四舍五入的团队的不同成员之间以一种随时间演变的动态方式分布的。我们描述了四种不同的方式,其中情境特异性在基于团队的临床护理中发挥不同于单个临床医生的作用。虽然我们使用内科的例子,但我们认为,我们提出的概念同样适用于医疗保健的其他专业和领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
期刊最新文献
Spurious test results as a diagnostic clue - pseudohyponatremia revealing multiple myeloma. Raised alpha fetoprotein in cirrhotic liver with colorectal liver metastasis mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma: case report and review of literature. Rationalisation of a thrombophilia panel using laboratory medicine Delphi-like consensus evaluation and secondary artificial intelligence-based simulation assessment. Trends in diagnostic error research across Asia: a quantitative content analysis. Visual heuristics and basal cell carcinoma: pitfalls and strategies for clinical vigilance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1