Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 343–363 | Cite as

Problem-solving in general practice

  • Jacobus Ridderikhoff


Objective: To identify problem solving strategies in general practice.

Basic procedures: Three styles of scientific reasoning were defined and modelled on the medical environment. These models were tested in a simulated doctor-patient encounter.

Main findings: According to the definitions contained in the models a deductive or hypotheticodeductive strategy could not be discovered. All participants used exclusively the inductive method and, more specifically, the speculative variant. This variant may be best described as a process of iterative pattern recognition.

Conclusions: The manifest utilization of the inductive method carries many implications among which are the irretraceability and irreproducibility of the process. The speculative form approaches the conception of art rather than science. This is exactly what most doctors try to tell: medicine is an art. The strategy allows for flexibility and quick response to the patient's needs.

Key words

general practice hypothesis generation medicine as an art pattern recognition problem solving reasoning strategies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Elstein AS, Kagan N, Shulman LS, et al. Methods and theory in the study of medical inquiry.J Med Educ 1972;47:85–92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leaper DJ, Gill PW, Staniland JR, et al. Clinical diagnostic process: an analysis.Brit Med J 1973;3:569–74.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balla JI. Logical thinking and the diagnostic process.Methods Inf Med 1980;19:88–92.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Card WI. Mathematical method in diagnosis.J R Coll Physicians Lond 1975;9:193–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindley DV. Probability and medical diagnosis.J Roy Coll Phycns London 1975;9:197–204.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sage AP. Behavioral and organizational considerations in the design of information systems and processes for planning and decision support.IEEE transactions on systems, man and cybernetics 1981;11:640–78.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tversky A, Kahnemann D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Biases in judgment reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty.Science 1974;185:1124–31.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments.N Engl J Med 1975;293:642–6 + 695–701.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komaroff AL. The variability and inaccuracy of medical data.Proceedings IEEE 1979;67:1196–1207.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blois MS. Clinical judgment and computers.N Engl J Med 1980;303:192–197.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cartwright A. Communications between doctors and patients.Proc R Soc Med 1968;61:11–14.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bruner JS, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA.A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka S.Medical Problem Solving. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whewell W.History of the Inductive Sciences. 3 volumes. London: J.W. Parker, 1837.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medawar PB.Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. London: Methuen & Co, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell EJM. The diagnosing mind.Lancet 1987;i:849–51.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groen GJ, Patel VL. Medical problem-solving: some questionable assumptions.Med Educ 1985;19:95–100.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCormick JS. Diagnosis: the need for demystification.Lancet 1986;ii:1434–5.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gorry GA. Modelling the diagnostic process.J Med Educ 1974;45:294–302.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Norman GR. Problem-solving skills, solving problems and problem-based learning.Med Educ 1988;22:279–86.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical medicine by iterative hypothesis testing: let's preach what we practice.N Engl J Med 1983;309:921–23.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barrows HS, Norman GR, Neufeld VR, et al. The clinical reasoning of randomly selected physicians in general medical practice.Clin Invest Med 1982;5:49–55.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor T. The role of computer systems in medical decision-making. In: Smith, H, Green TRG, eds.Human Interaction with Computers. London: Academic press, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howie JGR. Diagnosis — the achilles heel?J R Coll Gen Pract 1972;22:310–5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McWhinney IR. Problem-solving and decision-making in family practice.Can Fam Physician 1979;25:1473–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bentsen BG. The diagnostic process in primary medical care. In: Fry J, ed.Primary Care. London: Heinemann, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheldon MG, Brooke JB, Rector A.Decision-Making in General Practice. Houndsmills: MacMillan Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sadegh Zadeh K. Subjektive Wahrscheinlichkeit und Diagnose.Methods Inf Med 1974;13:97–102.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Popper KR.Realism and the Aim of Science. Ed. by W.W. Bartley III, Totowa (NJ): Rowman & Littlefield, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barrows HS, Feltovich PJ. The clinical reasoning process.Med Educ 1987;21:86–91.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Briskman L. Doctors and witchdoctors: which doctors are which?Brit Med J 1987;295:1033–6 + 1108–10.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mynatt CR, Doherty ME, Tweney RD. Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation.Q J Exp Psychol 1978;30:395–406.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ridderikhoff J.:Methods in Medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad Pub, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wason PC. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Q J Exp Psychol (1960);xii:129–140.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doroszewski J. Hypothetico-nomological aspects of medical diagnosis. Part I: General structure of the diagnostic process and its hypothesis-directed stage.Metamedicine 1980;1:177–94.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model.Am J Psychiatry 1980;137:535–44.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ridderikhoff J. Models of decision-making in the general practice: a design for a descriptive research.Med Inf 1985;10:323–37.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal reports as data.Psychol Rev 1980;87:215–51.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychol Rev 1956;63:81–97.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Horrobin DF. Scientific medicine — success or failure? In: Weatherall DJ, Ledingham JGG, Warrell DA, eds.Oxford Textbook of Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McGaghie WC. Medical problem solving: a reanalysis.J Med Educ 1980;55:912–21.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychol Rev 1977;84:231–59.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sober E. The art and science of clinical judgment: an informational approach. In: Engelhardt HT, Spicker SF, Towers B, eds.Clinical Judgment, a Critical Appraisal. D Reidel Publ Co: Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barrows HS, Bennett K. The diagnostic skill of the neurologist.Arch Neurol 1972;26:273–7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine. In: Clarke J, Leedham J, eds.Aspects of Educational Technology, 10: Individualised learning. London: Kogan Page, 1976.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Neufeld VR, Norman GR, Barrows HS, Feightner JW. Clinical problem-solving of medical students: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis.Med Educ 1981;15:26–32.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wortman PM. Medical diagnosis: an information processing approach.Comput Biomed Res 1972;5:315–28.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    McIntyre N, Popper KR. The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics.Brit Med J 1983;287:1919–23.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brehmer B. In one word: not from experience.Acta Psychol 1980;45:223–41.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kleinmuntz B. The processing of clinical information by man and machine. In: Kleinmuntz B, ed.Formal Representation of Human Judgment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Harre R.The Philosophies of Science. An Introductory Survey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gilhooly KJ.Thinking. Directed, Undirected, and Creative. 2nd ed. London, Academic Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peterson OL, Barsamian EM, Eden M. A study of diagnostic performance.J Med Educ 1966;41:797–803.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Scadding JG. Viewpoint. The semantics of medical diagnosis.Biomed Comput 1972;3:83–90.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Norman GR, Tugwell P, Feightner JW et al. Knowledge and clinical problemsolving.Med Educ 1985;19:344–56.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Crombie DL, Pinsent RJFH. The nature of information used in making clinical decisions in general practice.J R Coll Gen Pract 1976;26:502–6.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hull FM. Diagnostic pathways in general practice.J R Coll Gen Pract 1972;22:241–57.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kochen M. How clinicians recall experiences.Methods Inf Med 1983;22:83–6.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Munson R. Why medicine cannot be a science.J Med Philos 1981;6:183–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacobus Ridderikhoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Family MedicineErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations