Identification of Facilitators and Barriers to Residents' Use of a Clinical Reasoning Tool

Published in: Diagnosis [Epub February 2018]. doi: 10.1515/dx-2017-0

Posted on on February 21, 2018

by Deborah DiNardo, Sarah Tilstra, Melissa McNeil, William Follansbee, Shanta Zimmer, Coreen Farris, Amber E. Barnato

Read More

Access further information on this document at Walter de Gruyter GmbH

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.


While there is some experimental evidence to support the use of cognitive forcing strategies to reduce diagnostic error in residents, the potential usability of such strategies in the clinical setting has not been explored. We sought to test the effect of a clinical reasoning tool on diagnostic accuracy and to obtain feedback on its usability and acceptability.


We conducted a randomized behavioral experiment testing the effect of this tool on diagnostic accuracy on written cases among post-graduate 3 (PGY-3) residents at a single internal medical residency program in 2014. Residents completed written clinical cases in a proctored setting with and without prompts to use the tool. The tool encouraged reflection on concordant and discordant aspects of each case. We used random effects regression to assess the effect of the tool on diagnostic accuracy of the independent case sets, controlling for case complexity. We then conducted audiotaped structured focus group debriefing sessions and reviewed the tapes for facilitators and barriers to use of the tool.


Of 51 eligible PGY-3 residents, 34 (67%) participated in the study. The average diagnostic accuracy increased from 52% to 60% with the tool, a difference that just met the test for statistical significance in adjusted analyses (p=0.05). Residents reported that the tool was generally acceptable and understandable but did not recognize its utility for use with simple cases, suggesting the presence of overconfidence bias.


A clinical reasoning tool improved residents' diagnostic accuracy on written cases. Overconfidence bias is a potential barrier to its use in the clinical setting.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.