On context specificity and management reasoning: moving beyond diagnosis.

Abstract

Objectives: Diagnostic error is a global emergency. Context specificity is likely a source of the alarming rate of error and refers to the vexing phenomenon whereby a physician can see two patients with the same presenting complaint, identical history and examination findings, but due to the presence of contextual factors, decides on two different diagnoses. Studies have not empirically addressed the potential role of context specificity in management reasoning and errors with a diagnosis may not consistently translate to actual patient care.

Methods: We investigated the effect of context specificity on management reasoning in individuals working within a simulated internal medicine environment. Participants completed two ten minute back to back common encounters. The clinical content of each encounter was identical. One encounter featured the presence of carefully controlled contextual factors (CF+ vs. CF-) designed to distract from the correct diagnosis and management. Immediately after each encounter participants completed a post encounter form.

Results: Twenty senior medical students participated. The leading diagnosis score was higher (mean 0.88; SEM 0.07) for the CF- encounter compared with the CF+ encounter (0.58; 0.1; 95 % CI 0.04-0.56; p=0.02). Management reasoning scores were higher (mean 5.48; SEM 0.66) for the CF- encounter compared with the CF+ encounter (3.5; 0.56; 95 % CI 0.69-3.26; p=0.01). We demonstrated context specificity in both diagnostic and management reasoning.

Conclusions: This study is the first to empirically demonstrate that management reasoning, which directly impacts the patient, is also influenced by context specificity, providing additional evidence of context specificity's role in unwanted variance in health care.