1/ You’re staffing a complex patient w/ a learner on your consult team.
As they present it's clear the case was challenging for them.
They get to their assessment & take a breath.
You hit ⏸️ & say…”You know what? Let’s think through this dx together.”
What next?
This week:
2/ Consultants are often asked to assist with diagnosis.
What do we bring to the table?
An easy answer is deeper knowledge of a specific subset of presenting problems & diseases.
Focused clinical exposure means that we develop a unique & rich library of schemas & scripts.
3/ Though specialty-specific knowledge is essential to effective diagnostic reasoning for consultants, it is not enough.
Our unique 'invited' role in cases means we also need to have specific (meta)cognitive skills & habits.
Those skills/habits are part of a teachable process.
4/ Here I’ve depicted a well-established framework for diagnostic reasoning (not specialty-specific).
We may not consciously engage in this process for every case we encounter.
But, analyzing reasoning as a process lets us identify deficiencies & teach more intentionally.
5/ Let’s now analyze some of the steps in this process w/ two specific objectives:
🎯 Identify how a consultant’s knowledge & skills at that step may be unique
🎯 Describe strategies for developing that knowledge/skill to improve diagnostic reasoning
6/ First: Data-gathering
Two 🗝️ consultant skills:
1⃣ Collect data targeted to your specialty & informed by specific diagnostic hypotheses
2⃣"Trust but verify" - this old dogma is actually a useful cognitive forcing strategy to deploy when receiving new consults
7/ How do we instill these habits?
@JenniferSpicer4 discussed specialty-specific frameworks to focus data-gathering in a prior thread
And I've discussed how peppering a consult requester w/ questions you will answer yourself anyway is counterproductive.
8/ Next: Problem representation
This step involves distilling a case to the most diagnostically high-yield information.
Two 🗝️ skills for specialists:
1⃣ Be precise in how data are described
2⃣ Use different formulations of the problem to explore competing diagnostic pathways
9/ Basically, it comes down to naming & framing.
The consult request is one way to formulate the diagnostic problem that needs to be solved. But other formulations may be better.
How do we develop learners to do this effectively?
🔁 By RE-framing cases & thinking “out loud”.
10/ Next: Hypothesis generation
Diagnostic schemas for many subspecialty problems already exist (TY @cpsolvers!).
So, what can consultants add?
1⃣ Richer knowledge of natural history
2⃣ Schemas for problems recalcitrant to usual management
3⃣ Schemas for "endpoint diagnoses”
11/ How do we teach this?
For existing schemas, we can add nuance w/ knowledge of base rate & natural history (e.g., how is this disease supposed to present?)
For cases where ‘usual care’ hasn't worked, we can create schemas using experiential wisdom about how things go wrong.
12/ One more point: Consultants are often asked to help manage a differentiated (read: diagnosed) problem.
We thus need to teach schemas that explore etiologic explanations for common problems!
13/ Next: Test interpretation
Consults are often prompted by obscure or equivocal test results.
Reasoning skills we can develop here:
1⃣ How to parse complex results (ex. flow cytometry, discordant HIV Ab/PCR, etc.)
2⃣ Estimating pre/post-test probability
14/ To build this skill, our teaching should derive from the kinds of questions we get.
All these strategies use hypothetical scenarios to:
🤔 Probe how learners are prioritizing diagnoses
🔁 Create opportunities for deliberate practice
📚 Augment disease/management scripts
15/ Finally: Working Dx
Consultants often add value just by clarifying the active problem(s).
Specialty learners need to learn to formulate their working Dx to help teams:
1⃣ Synthesize & prioritize
2⃣ Halt diagnostic/therapeutic momentum
3⃣ Capture the level of uncertainty
16/ How can we teach this?
Notes are an effective medium to model these skills & @JenniferSpicer4 shared one framework:
Re-phrasing the assessment concisely conveys the working dx as you (the teacher) are formulating it.
Some ID examples to illustrate:
17/ Let’s recap:
In this 🧵 we:
📌 Dissected the diagnostic reasoning process & explored unique considerations for specialists.
📌 Identified elements that require intentional development of specific knowledge/skills/habits.
📌 Summarized teaching strategies to build them!
18/ Next week I will continue this series on “Teaching the Consult Team” w/ “Management Reasoning.”
-Maybe you don’t have a consult “team” to teach
-Maybe you want to showcase your specialty & recruit interested trainees
-Maybe you want to build ties to other service lines
What to do?
This week:
2/ @JenniferSpicer4 and I have spent the last few weeks exploring the "why", the "who", and the "when" of teaching the primary team in our role as consultants.
Now let's turn to the "what".
What repertoire of teaching scripts should we strive to develop as specialists?
1/ You staff a new consult w/ your team. You share pearls & make a plan.
Then:
🩻 You review the CT w/ radiology.
🤝 You chat w/ another consult service.
🗣️ You deliver your recs at the workroom.
📲 You call night float w/ an update.
So many opportunities to teach!
This week:
2/ Last week @JenniferSpicer4 kicked off our segment on "Teaching the Primary Team" by focusing on "The Why."
This week, for "The Who", I want to think beyond just the primary team to identify the many different learners we encounter as consultants.
3/ Why?
Even though the primary team is the obvious audience for teaching - their "ask" is what invited us into the case to begin with! - we usually interface with many other teams in the process of rendering our opinion.
Them: “We want you on board because ____ is 'refusing' to do this procedure but ____ says it's needed. You're the tiebreaker.”
You: [sigh] “OK.”
⌛️
Patient: “Ah! ____ said YOU'RE the one holding up my discharge!”
You: 🙄
Feeling triggered yet?
This week:
2/ Conflict is inevitable when working within a system.
What do I mean when I say “conflict”? 🤔 For the purposes of this 🧵 let me paraphrase a huge body of literature w/ the following definition:
Conflict is “disagreement” that causes (or has the potential to cause) “harm”.
3/ Let's unpack this a bit more w/ a focus on conflict in consultative care.
"Disagreement" is a broad term.
It can stem from...
↪️ real OR perceived differences in opinion
↪️ about diagnosis OR management
↪️ between the primary team & the consultant OR between consultants