Résumé
Le raisonnement clinique est au coeur de la compétence médicale. Pourtant, dans le domaine de l’urgence, il a fait l’objet d’une attention très modeste de la part des chercheurs, au regard des autres déterminants de la performance des médecins. Le raisonnement clinique désigne les processus cognitifs mobilisés pour établir des diagnostics et décider d’actions thérapeutiques. À travers deux récits cliniques, nous décrivons les processus analytiques (réflexifs) et non analytiques (intuitifs) identifiés dans la littérature scientifique. Ceux-ci ont très majoritairement concerné les disciplines dites « conventionnelles ». Nous mettons en évidence le rôle déterminant de la pratique clinique, dans la mesure où elle permet aux praticiens d’élaborer des connaissances organisées et stockées en mémoire à long terme, qui sous-tendent le fonctionnement des processus de raisonnement. Nous évoquons également l’influence considérable du contexte sur le raisonnement, afin de justifier l’intérêt de mener des travaux de recherche visant à identifier si les médecins urgentistes mobilisent des processus cognitifs particuliers, au regard des spécificités qui caractérisent leur cadre d’exercice. La connaissance, par les praticiens, de la façon dont ils raisonnent est associée à des enjeux majeurs en termes de pratique de la médecine d’urgence et de formation dans cette discipline.
Abstract
Clinical reasoning is a major determinant of physicians’ competence. However, it has not been much studied in the emergency medicine literature, when compared to other determinants. Clinical reasoning refers to the cognitive processes used to make diagnoses and decisions. Through a couple of clinical histories, we give a description of the analytical (conscious) and non-analytical (intuitive) processes that have been identified through studies made in conventional fields of medicine. We highlight the importance of clinical practice, since it allows the development of knowledge organized and stored in physicians’ long-term memory, which underlie the functioning of the reasoning processes. We also underline the importance of context in clinical reasoning, which justifies the interest to carry out research works on clinical reasoning in the field of emergency medicine, in regard to the specific characteristics of emergency medicine practice. Physicians’ knowledge of the reasoning processes, which they use to make diagnoses and decisions, is associated with major issues in terms of emergency medicine practice and education.
References
Charlin B, Tardif J, Boshuizen HP (2000) Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research. Acad Med 75:182–190
Higgs J, Jones MA (2008) Clinical decision making and multiple problem spaces. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 3–18
Norman GR (2005) Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ 39:418–427
Schwartz A, Elstein AS (2008) Clinical reasoning in medicine. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 223–234
Croskerry P (2006) Critical thinking and decision making: avoiding the perils of thin-slicing. Ann Emerg Med, 48:720–722
Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM (1980) Problem based learning: an approach to medical education. Springer, New York
Eva KW (2005) What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ 39:98–106
Hogarth RM (2001) Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
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, Mahwah, pp 67–82
Elstein AS, Schwartz A (2002) Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ 324:729–732
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, Boston, pp 205–230
Croskerry P (2009) Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q 12:171–176
Nendaz M, Charlin B, Leblanc V, Bordage G (2005) Le raisonnement clinique: données issues de la recherche et implications pour l’enseignement. Ped Med 6:235–254
Ark TK, Brooks LR, Eva KW (2006) Giving learners the best of both worlds: do clinical teachers need to guard against teaching patter recognition to novices? Acad Med 81:405–409
Kulatunga-Moruzi C, Brooks LR, Norman GR (2001) Coordination of analytic and similarity-based processing strategies and expertise in dermatological diagnosis. Teach Learn Med 13:110–116
Charlin B, Boshuizen HP, Custers EJ, Feltovich PJ (2007) Scripts and clinical reasoning. Med Educ 41:1178–1184
Schmidt HG, Rikers RM (2007) How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Med Educ 41:1133–1139
Coderre S, Mandin H, Harasym PH, Fick GH (2003) Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Med Educ 37: 695–703
Boshuizen HP, Schmidt HG (1992) On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. Cog Sci 16:153–184
Kaufman DR, Yoskowitz NA, Patel VL (2008) Clinical reasoning and biomedical knowledge: implications for teaching. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N (eds) Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 123–136
Bill JC, Rosen P, Williams TE (1975) Emergency medicine in the university hospital. JACEP 4:55–59
Weingart SD (2008) Critical decision making in chaotic environments. In: Croskerry P, Cosby KS, Schenkel SM, Wears RL (eds) Patient safety in emergency medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 209–212
Chisholm CD, Collison EK, Nelson DR, Cordell WH (2000) Emergency department workplace interruptions: are emergency physicians “interrupt-driven” and “multitasking”? Acad Emerg Med 7:1239–1243
Croskerry P, Abbass AA, Albert WW (2008) How doctors feel: affective issues in patients’ safety. Lancet 272:1205–1206
Croskerry P (2000) The feedback sanction. Acad Emerg Med 7:1232–1328
Ammirati C, Amsallem C (2010) Examen pratique facultaire en médecine de catastrophe: proposition d’un examen à stations multiples. Ped Med 11:S75
Scott IA (2009) Errors in clinical reasoning: causes and remedial strategies. BMJ, 338:b1860
Graber ML (2005) Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 165:493–499
Croskerry P, Sinclair D (2001) Emergency medicine: a practice prone to error? CJEM 3:271–276
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study 1. N Engl J Med 324:370–376
Sandhu H, Carpenter C, Freeman K, et al (2006) Clinical decision making: opening the black box of cognitive reasoning. Ann Emerg Med 48:713–719
Croskerry P (2003) The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to prevent them. Acad Emerg Med 78:1–6
Schull MJ, Ferris LE, Tu JV, et al (2001) Problems for clinical judgment: thinking clearly in an emergency. Can Med Assoc J 164:1170–1175
Norman GR, Eva KW (2010) Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ 44:94–100
Bertrand C, Ouss I, Jehel L, Le Bourgeois JP (2004) Stratégie d’évaluation des compétences au cours du diplôme universitaire de régulation des urgences médicales. Ped Med 5:27–34
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Pelaccia, T., Tardif, J., Triby, E. et al. Comment les médecins raisonnent-ils pour poser des diagnostics et prendre des décisions thérapeutiques ? Les enjeux en médecine d’urgence. Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence 1, 77–84 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-010-0006-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13341-010-0006-1
Mots clés
- Raisonnement clinique
- Reconnaissance de formes
- Raisonnement hypothéticodéductif
- Chaînage avant
- Intuition