To diminish the possibility of premature closure, assume your working diagnosis is incorrect and then consider alternative diagnoses.
Evaluate the process. (Stop, Think, Act, Review)
Communicate the diagnosis.
Follow up.
Clinical reasoning is improved when errors in information, judgment, and reasoning are discovered and discussed when reviewing the case. The quicker this happens, the greater the improvement.
The above detailed steps may not be immediately recognizable or flow in the same sequence in the context of actual clinical reasoning. Experts apply pattern recognition with non-analytic cognitive processing during the initial phases of considering a novel clinical case, then apply analytic processing in hypothesis testing. Novices may work the other way round. However, these two forms of reasoning can be interactive and not sequential. They are complementary contributors to the overall accuracy of the clinical reasoning process, each one influencing the other. Persons who use both (and start with non-analytic cognitive processing) perform better than persons using either non-analytic or analytic approaches alone.
Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):98-106.
Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached. Acad Med. 2010; 85:1118-1124.
![]() | ![]() |