Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Remote consulting: recognising the cognitive load

Lucy Ambrose
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (695): 295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X710213
Lucy Ambrose
Tutbury, Staffordshire, and Director of BMBS Clinical Medicine Course, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Email:
Roles: GP Partner, the Tutbury Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lucy.ambrose@nottingham.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Do you find remote consulting tiring? At the end of the day is your head bursting and do you generally feel exhausted in a different way?

I do. First of all I blamed this on my screen, then my chair, my neck and shoulders, perhaps some health anxiety, my phone position, and finally my own inherent dissonance with template consulting.

This led me to consider my weariness in terms of my ways of thinking.

I had read a chapter by Stanovich about cognitive processing.1 You may have read or heard about dual process theory, which has been widely written about in the medical literature, led by Pat Croskerry.2 Dual process theory brings into play an automated form of thinking called Type 1 processes and an analytical form called Type 2 processes, also described as System 1 and System 2 thinking.3 As experienced doctors and GPs we complete most consultation activity in Type 1 mode. We are hardwired to default to automated processes where possible because they require less cognitive effort and we are programmed to protect ourselves.

The theory hypothesises that we move to use Type 2 processes when something is not recognised or where there is a disorientating component.

We will all have an example in our mind of a situation where we started to feel uncomfortable as an initial, seemingly clear, hypothesis becomes complex and the clarity of the diagnosis evaporates in front of us. When this happens to me, I start to go through a more detailed form of questioning and consciously consider the differential diagnosis.

I do not suggest that I am an expert in this. I have my own working summary. Essentially we lay down memories for all the patients that we see and each memory pathway has minor detours for different presentations. Pathways connect with shortcuts between the frequently travelled routes. As a patient gives us their history, we test it automatically against existing patterns and pathways, and it is not until we reach a pattern or a crossroads our brain doesn’t recognise that we then switch to Type 2 analytical processes. Other aspects can have a hand in this, and this is where I think remote consulting throws us off our automated memory retrieval behaviour and forces us into Type 2 processes more frequently than would usually happen.

Figure

Lucy Ambrose.

Much of the discussion about remote consulting focuses on the technology, which has moved forward with impressive speed. There is no argument about the current utility of remote consulting, but my contention here is to recognise that we are thinking differently, and then to ask why and at what cost?

TIME TO APPRAISE CLINICAL REASONING AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR REMOTE CONSULTING

The change in environment and the multifaceted use of photos, video, and audio changes the structure of our memory pathways. We now have a different approach for familiar clinical problems: death verification via remote video link, a multimedia approach to a single consultation, and a different, fragmented diagnostic process. I am finding myself questioning every step of each activity.

We should explicitly recognise the effort in this and take it into account. The cognitive load associated with what we are doing is much higher.

Stanovich built in an additional element in his theory: that of the reflective mind. Reflection can be multifaceted and has the potential to mitigate some risks. Mezirow’s and Schön’s models of reflection and learning suggest we operate with two levels of reflective thinking.4,5 This is what I call everyday reflection, and the more controlled post-event critical reflection. It is the lower level that is key to mitigating risks and is our safety net here.

We have debunked presenteeism over recent times; now is the time to appraise two of our defining features, clinical reasoning and risk management for remote consulting. These are precious and vulnerable to context. We are redrawing our mental maps at scale to reset them in a remote model. We should allow for the effort involved in this endeavour, recognise the time required, and be gently reflective in an everyday manner.

Footnotes

  • This article was first posted on BJGP LIFE on 29 May 2020: www.bjgplife.com/ambrose

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Stanovich KE
    Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: is it time for a tri-process theory?http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reasoning_files/Stanovich_Two_MInds.pdf (accessed 4 May 2020).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Croskerry P,
    2. Nimmo GR
    Better clinical decision making and reducing diagnostic errorJ R Coll Physicians Edinb2011412155162
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kahneman D
    Thinking, fast and slowLondonPenguin2012
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mezirow J
    Learning as transformation Critical perspectives on a theory in progressSan FranciscoJossey-Bass2000
  5. 5.↵
    1. Schön DA
    Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professionsSan FranciscoJossey-Bass1987
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (695)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 695
June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Remote consulting: recognising the cognitive load
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Remote consulting: recognising the cognitive load
Lucy Ambrose
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (695): 295. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X710213

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Remote consulting: recognising the cognitive load
Lucy Ambrose
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (695): 295. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X710213
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • TIME TO APPRAISE CLINICAL REASONING AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR REMOTE CONSULTING
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Yonder: HFpEF, amputees, professional identity formation, and leadership training
  • Manufacturing doctors is one thing; sustaining working communities is quite another
  • Junior doctors leaving the NHS: what would it mean for general practice?
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242