Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 7, pp 865–873 | Cite as

Insights into emergency physicians’ minds in the seconds before and into a patient encounter

  • Thierry Pelaccia
  • Jacques Tardif
  • Emmanuel Triby
  • Christine Ammirati
  • Catherine Bertrand
  • Bernard Charlin
  • Valérie Dory


Clinical reasoning is a core competency in medical practice. No study has explored clinical reasoning occurring before a clinical encounter, when physicians obtain preliminary information about the patient, and during the first seconds of the observation phase. This paper aims to understand what happens in emergency physicians’ minds when they acquire initial information about a patient, and when they first meet a patient. The authors carried out in-depth interviews based on the video recordings of emergency situations filmed in an “own-point-of-view-perspective”. 15 expert emergency physicians were interviewed between 2011 and 2012. Researchers analysed data using an interpretive approach based on thematic analysis and constant comparison. Almost all participants used a few critical pieces of information to generate hypotheses even before they actually met the patient. Pre-encounter hypotheses played a key role in the ensuing encounter by directing initial data gathering. Initial data, collected within the first few seconds of the encounter, included the patient’s position on the stretcher, the way they had been prepared, their facial expression, their breathing, and their skin colour. Physicians also rapidly appraised the seriousness of the patient’s overall condition, which determined their initial goals, i.e. initiating emergency treatment or pursuing the diagnostic investigation. The study brings new insights on what happens at the very beginning of the encounter between emergency physicians and patients. The results obtained from an innovative methodological approach open avenues for the development of clinical reasoning in learners.


Clinical reasoning Decision making Emergency medicine Hypotheses generation Dual-process theory 



We thank all the physicians who took part in the interviews. Their contribution to the research is invaluable. We thank physicians who helped us to recruit. We thank Pierre Paillé, senior qualitative researcher, for his contribution to the study design. We also thank Annick Bourget, Associate Professor and Nicolas Pelaccia, Consultant, for their contribution to this research.


This study was supported by a grant from the French Society for Emergency Medicine (SFMU). The grant was used to buy the camera and to pay TP’s travel expenses needed for data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by both a university ethics committee (Education and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sherbrooke, Canada-#CER-ESS 2010-71) and a hospital ethics committee (Committee for the Protection of Persons Northwest 2, Amiens University Hospital-#A01586-37).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all physicians included in the study. Oral informed consent was obtained from all patients or a trusted third party.


  1. 1.
    Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM (1980) Problem based learning: an approach to medical education. Springer, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charlin B, Tardif J, Boshuizen HP (2000) Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research. Acad Med 75:182–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Croskerry P (2009) A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med 84:1022–1028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr, Pangaro LN et al (2011) Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ 45:927–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S et al (2008) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuhn GJ (2002) Diagnostic errors. Acad Emerg Med 9:740–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sandhu H, Carpenter C, Freeman K et al (2006) Clinical decisionmaking: opening the black box of cognitive reasoning. Ann Emerg Med 48:713–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C et al (2013) Does inappropriate selectivity in information use relate to diagnostic errors and patient harm? The diagnosis of patients with dyspnea. Soc Sci Med 91:32–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boshuizen HP, Schmidt HG (2008) The development of clinical reasoning expertise. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S et al (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charlin B, Lubarsky S, Millette B et al (2012) Clinical reasoning processes: unravelling complexity through graphical representation. Med Educ 46:454–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E et al (2011) An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: the dual-process theory. Med Educ Online 16. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890
  12. 12.
    Marcum JA (2012) An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition. J Eval Clin Pract 18:954–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman GR, Young M, Brooks LR (2007) Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: the role of experience. Med Educ 41:1140–1145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 104:650–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogarth RM (2011) Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Croskerry P (2000) The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med 7:1131–1223Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elstein AS, Schwartz A (2002) Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ 324:729–732PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgs J, Jones MA (2008) Clinical decision making and multiple problem space. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S et al (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hogarth RM (2005) Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In: Betsch T, Haberstroh S (eds) Routines of decision making. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elstein AS (1999) Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med 74:791–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gruppen LD, Frohna AZ (2002) Clinical reasoning. In: Norman GR, van der Vleuten CP, Newble DI (eds) International handbook of research in medical education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E et al (2014) How and when do expert emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses? A qualitative study using head-mounted video cued-recall interviews. Ann Emerg Med 64:575–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz A, Elstein AS (2008) Clinical reasoning in medicine. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S et al (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ilgen JS, Humbert AJ, Kuhn G et al (2012) Assessing diagnostic reasoning: a consensus statement summarizing theory, practice, and future needs. Acad Emerg Med 19:1454–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein RM (1999) Mindful practice. JAMA 282:833–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knoblauch H (2005) Focused ethnography. Forum Qual Soc Res 6:44Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Omodei MM, McLennan J (1994) Studying complex decision making in natural settings: using a head-mounted video camera to study competitive orienteering. Percept Mot Skills 79:1411–1425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Omodei MM, McLennan J, Wearing AJ (2005) How expertise is applied in real-world dynamic environments: head-mounted video and cued recall as a methodology for studying routines of decision making. In: Betsch T, Haberstroh S (eds) The routines of decision making. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 271–288Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Unsworth CA (2004) Clinical reasoning: how do Pragmatic reasoning, worldview and client-centredness fit? Br J Occup Ther 76:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79(Suppl 10):70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coyne I (1997) Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs 26:623–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N (2000) Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 320:114–116PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Publishing, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Green J, Thorogood N (2004) Qualitative methods for health research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Croskerry P (2003) The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med 78:775–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R (2005) Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 165:1493–1499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heiberg Engel PJ (2008) Tacit knowledge and visual expertise in medical diagnostic reasoning: implications for medical education. Med Teach 30:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr, Pangaro LN et al (2010) Perspective: redefining context in the clinical encounter: implications for research and training in medical education. Acad Med 85:894–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Croskerry P (2009) Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q 12:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Britten N (1995) Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311:251–253PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G (2009) Using SNAPPS to facilitate the expression of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: a randomized comparison group trial. Acad Med 84:517–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Klein G, Hoffman R (1993) Seeing the invisible: perceptual/cognitive aspects of expertise. In: Rabinowitz M (ed) Cognitive science foundations of instruction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 203–226Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bordage G (1999) Why did I miss the diagnosis? Some cognitive explanations and educational implications. Acad Med 74(Suppl 10):138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thierry Pelaccia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacques Tardif
    • 3
  • Emmanuel Triby
    • 4
  • Christine Ammirati
    • 5
  • Catherine Bertrand
    • 6
  • Bernard Charlin
    • 7
  • Valérie Dory
    • 8
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Training and Research in Health Sciences Education (CFR-PS)University of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Prehospital Emergency Care Service (SAMU 67), Centre for Emergency Care Teaching (CESU 67)Strasbourg University HospitalStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of EducationUniversity of SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of Educational SciencesUniversity of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  5. 5.Department of Emergency MedicineAmiens University HospitalAmiensFrance
  6. 6.Prehospital Emergency Care Service (SAMU 94), Henri-Mondor HospitalPublic Hospitals of ParisCréteilFrance
  7. 7.Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Pedagogy Applied to Health Sciences (CPASS)University of MontrealMontréalCanada
  8. 8.Undergraduate Medical Education and Centre for Medical EducationMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations