Download PDFPDF
Head, heart or checklist? How self-reported decision-making strategies change according to speciality and grade: a cross-sectional survey of doctors
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    The tension between "gestalt" and the checklist

    The tension between head, heart and checklist is strikingly exemplified by the clinical decision process involved in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism(PE). Currently, this process is characterised by a proliferation of clinical decision rules which involve mind numbingly long lists of items, and their associated calculations, the latter intended to generate numerical scores(1)(2) which confer a semblance of scientific credibility to the process. By contrast, a school of thought has emerged which posits that clinical acumen, defined as unstructured clinical impression or "gestalt" is, at the very least, as reliable a sole reliance on clinical prediction rules for discriminating among patients who have a low, moderate, or high pretest probability of PE(1). Over time, gestalt, itself, appears progressively to confer increasing diagnostic accuracy, judging by the diagnostic performance of senior physicians(postgraduate year 4 plus) vs interns(postgraduate year 1) working in the emergency department of a large teaching hospital(3). Concurrently, we have seen the emergence of gestalt-based clinical decision strategies such as the PERC rule(4) and the YEARS algorithm(5). as an attempt to resolve the tension between underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of PE.
    Clinical acumen, itself, performs best when it is informed, not only by the numerical score of years since obtaining one's medical qualification, but also by interaction(through the medium of case co...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.