Characterizing Novice-Expert Differences in Macrocognition: An Exploratory Study of Cognitive Work in the Emergency Department
Abstract
Study objective The objectives of this study are to elicit and document descriptions of emergency physician expertise, to characterize cognitive differences between novice and expert physicians, and to identify areas in which novices' skill and knowledge gaps are most pronounced. The nature of the differences between novices and experts needs to be explored to develop effective instructional modalities that accelerate the learning curve of inexperienced physicians who work in high-complexity environments.Methods We interviewed novice emergency physicians (first-year residents) and attending physicians with significant expertise, working in an academic Level I trauma center in Southern California. With cognitive task analysis, we used task diagrams to capture nonroutine critical incidents that required the use of complex cognitive skills. Timelines were constructed to develop a detailed understanding of challenging incidents and the decisions involved as the incident unfolded, followed by progressive deepening to tease out situation-specific cues, knowledge, and information that experts and novices used. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted to identify key categories. Using classification techniques for data reduction, we identified a smaller set of key themes, which composed the core findings of the study.Results Five interns and 6 attending physicians participated in the interviews. Novice physicians reported having difficulties representing the patient's story to attending physicians and other health care providers. Overrelying on objective data, novice physicians use linear thinking to move to diagnosis quickly and are likely to discount and explain away data that do not "fit" the frame. Experienced physicians draw on expertise to recognize cues and patterns while leaving room for altering or even changing their initial diagnosis. Whereas experts maintain high levels of spatial, temporal, and organizational systems awareness when overseeing treatment modalities of multiple patients, novices have difficulty seeing and maintaining the "big picture."Conclusion Novice physicians use sense-making styles that differ from those of experts. Training novices to respond to the high cognitive demand of complex environments early in their careers requires instructional modalities that not only increase their knowledge base but also accelerate the integration of knowledge and practice. Simulation and custom-designed avatar-mediated virtual worlds are a promising new technology that may facilitate such training. Future research should expand on the results of this study through the use of larger sample sizes and interviews conducted at multiple sites to increase generalizability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These same skills allow clinicians to efficiently recognize when a new clinical scenario might not fit a previously identified mental model, thus altering subsequent management decisions.
“These same skills allow clinicians to efficiently recognize when a new clinical scenario might not fit a previously identified mental model, thus altering subsequent management decisions (Schubert et al. 2013).”
From Measuring physician cognitive load: validity evidence for a physiologic and a psychometric tool (2017) · cites this paper as Schubert et al. 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Schubert, C. C., Denmark, T. K., Crandall, B., Grome, A., & Pappas, J.
- Affiliations
- Loma Linda University (US)
- Loma Linda University Medical Center (US)
- Applied Research Associates (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pappas, James
- Venue
- Annals of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 96-109
- ISSN
- 0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168644082
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency Medicine Education and Research
- Keywords
- expert-novice differences, cognitive work, emergency department, learning curve, sensemaking, critical incidents, cognitive task analysis, clinical decision-making, simulation-based training, medical education
- MeSH terms
- California, Clinical Competence, Cognition, Decision Making, Emergency Medicine, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interviews as Topic, Male, Physicians, Task Performance and Analysis, Trauma Centers, Learning Curve
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review