• Thierry Pelaccia, Jonathan Sherbino, Peter Wyer, and Geoff Norman.
• Prehospital Emergency Care Service (SAMU 67), Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
• Acad Emerg Med. 2024 Oct 21.

BackgroundAccurate diagnosis in emergency medicine (EM) is high stakes and challenging. Research into physicians' clinical reasoning has been ongoing since the late 1970s. The dual-process theory has established itself as a valid model, including in EM. It is based on the distinction between two information-processing systems. System 1 rapidly generates one or more diagnostic hypotheses almost instantaneously, driven by experiential knowledge, while System 2 proceeds more slowly and analytically, applying formal rules to arrive at a final diagnosis.MethodsWe reviewed the literature on dual-process theory in the fields of cognitive science, medical education and emergency medicine.Results And ConclusionThe literature reflects two prominent interpretations regarding the relationship between the fast and slow phases and these interpretations carry very different implications for the training of clinical learners. One interpretation, prominent in the EM community, presents it as a "check-and-balance" framework in which most diagnostic error is caused by cognitive biases originating within System 1. As a result, EM residents are frequently advised to deploy analytical (System 2) strategies to correct such biases. However, such teaching approaches are not supported by research into the nature of diagnostic reasoning. An alternative interpretation assumes a harmonious relationship between Systems 1 and 2 in which both fast and slow processes are driven by underlying knowledge that conditions performance and the occurrence of errors. Educational strategies corresponding to this alternative have not been explored in the EM literature. In this paper, we offer proposals for improving the teaching and learning of diagnostic reasoning by EM residents.© 2024 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

17 keywords...

hide…