• J Eval Clin Pract · Aug 2024

    Review

    Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise.

    • Geoff Norman, Thierry Pelaccia, Peter Wyer, and Jonathan Sherbino.
    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
    • J Eval Clin Pract. 2024 Aug 1; 30 (5): 788796788-796.

    RationaleResearch on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction.Aims And ObjectivesIn the present paper, we take issue with these claims.MethodWe reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence.ResultsWe show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory-that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning.ConclusionsThe two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…