Why articulating clinical reasoning is harder than thinking it

Why articulating clinical reasoning is harder than thinking it. Clinical reasoning isn’t complete until it’s shared and understood. Clinicians must slow down, unpack compressed thought, avoid assumptions, and connect reasoning with patient values to deliver safe, effective, and patient-centred care.

Health professionals spend much of their working lives engaging in clinical reasoning. They gather cues, interpret findings, weigh probabilities, consider risks, and integrate evidence with experience to arrive at diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. To health professionals, this process can feel almost seamless, a rapid, intuitive blend of pattern recognition and analytical checks.

Yet when asked to articulate that reasoning, especially to patients, it can suddenly become difficult. What was internally clear becomes verbally tangled. What felt obvious when synthesised in their own minds can seem impossible to express without jargon or overwhelming detail. This disconnect highlights a fundamental truth: articulating clinical reasoning is far harder than thinking clinical reasoning.

Understanding why this is so, and learning to communicate our reasoning effectively, is vital. Not only does it strengthen therapeutic relationships, but it also supports patient autonomy, safety, and trust.

Thinking vs. articulating: Different cognitive tasks

The first reason articulation is harder lies in the distinction between cognition and communication.

When clinicians think clinically, they operate within our own mental shorthand. They notice a cluster of findings and quickly link them to likely diagnoses. They consider test results against their internal database of probabilities. Much of this happens subconsciously, guided by pattern recognition, heuristics, and years of accumulated experience.

Articulation, however, requires translating that internal process into a structured narrative accessible to someone who does not share a clinician’s training or assumptions. When communicating with their patients, health professionals must sequence their reasoning, strip it of jargon, highlight the most relevant elements, and justify why one path was chosen over others. This is not merely describing what they thought, it is reconstructing their thought processes in a way that can be followed by another mind, often one without a medical background.

That translation step is where complexity arises.

The problem of cognitive compression

Clinical reasoning in practice is often “compressed.” Clinicians rarely dwell consciously on every possibility because their training allows them to rapidly exclude or prioritise. For example, a clinician may immediately recognise a constellation of symptoms as pneumonia, mentally ruling out a dozen other causes almost instantly.

But when explaining this to a patient, they cannot simply say, “It’s pneumonia.” To foster understanding and trust, they must expand the compressed reasoning to explain:

• Why this is more likely pneumonia than heart failure.
• Why they are not pursuing certain tests.
• What risks and uncertainties remain.

Unpacking compressed thinking takes far more time and effort than the original act of compressing it. Patients do not benefit from clinicians handing them the “answer” without the supporting rationale.

The curse of knowledge

Another barrier is what psychologists call the curse of knowledge. Once we know something, it becomes very difficult to imagine what it is like not to know it.

For health professionals, basic concepts like “inflammation,” “probability,” or “side effects” are second nature. But for many patients, these terms are foreign, frightening, or misleading. Clinicians may unconsciously assume understanding where none exists, or gloss over crucial steps because they cannot easily put themselves in the shoes of a layperson.

Breaking free from this curse requires conscious effort. Health professionals must continually check:

• Am I using language the patient understands?
• Have I explained the “why,” not just the “what”?
• Does the patient see the decision as reasonable, or just as authoritative?

Emotional weight and patient context

Clinical reasoning is not conducted in a vacuum. When health professionals articulate their decisions, they are not only transmitting information; they are also addressing patients’ fears, hopes, and values.

For example, recommending chemotherapy is not simply about explaining relative risk reduction and side-effect profiles. It is also about engaging with the patient’s personal priorities—whether they value longevity, quality of life, or the ability to attend an important life event.

Thus, articulating reasoning requires health professionals to weave clinical evidence with empathy and context. They must invite patients into the reasoning process, rather than delivering it as a closed conclusion. This is inherently more demanding than the initial act of clinical thinking, which can be purely analytical.

Why communication matters

Some clinicians worry that patients will find detailed explanations confusing or overwhelming. Yet studies consistently show that patients value understanding their care. Even when they defer to professional judgment, they feel safer and more respected when they are given insight into why a decision was made.

Effective articulation of reasoning benefits practice in several ways:

• Trust and rapport - Patients are more likely to adhere to treatment when they see the logic behind it.
• Shared decision-making - Explaining options empowers patients to make choices aligned with their values.
• Safety - Clear reasoning reduces miscommunication and prevents errors, especially when care involves multiple professionals.
• Professional accountability - Putting reasoning into words sharpens our own clarity and reveals hidden assumptions.

Practical strategies to improve articulation

Learning to communicate clinical reasoning is a skill that can be cultivated. Some practical approaches include:

• Use plain language first. Begin with the core idea in simple terms, then add detail if the patient requests it.
• Structure explanations. Frameworks such as “What we know - What it could be - Why we think this - What we’ll do next” give patients a narrative they can follow.
• Check understanding. Ask patients to reflect back what they understood, ensuring the message landed as intended.
• Balance detail with priorities. Focus on the reasoning that influences action, rather than every possible exclusion.
• Integrate values. Explicitly invite the patient’s preferences and goals into the reasoning process.

Conclusion

For health professionals, clinical reasoning may feel natural, even automatic. But articulating that reasoning—especially in ways patients can understand—is a far more demanding task. It requires clinicians to slow down, unpack compressed thought, overcome the curse of knowledge, and align evidence with individual values.

This extra effort is not optional; it is central to effective care. By learning to communicate their reasoning clearly, health professionals not only enhance patient trust and safety but also elevate the quality of their own practice. After all, a clinical decision is not complete until both clinician and patient understand the “what” and the “why.”

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why articulating clinical reasoning is harder than thinking it

Q1. Why is articulating clinical reasoning harder than thinking it?
A: Thinking is compressed, rapid, and often intuitive, while articulating requires the extra effort of translation into a structured, jargon-free explanation that someone else (often without medical training) can follow.

Q2. What is meant by “cognitive compression” in clinical reasoning?
A: It refers to the way clinicians shortcut reasoning in their minds, rapidly excluding or prioritising possibilities without consciously processing each step. When speaking to patients, these compressed steps need to be unpacked to explain why a diagnosis or decision was made.

Q3. Can you give an example of cognitive compression in practice?
A: A clinician may instantly recognise pneumonia from a constellation of findings. But to the patient, they must explain why it’s pneumonia rather than heart failure, why some tests aren’t needed, and what uncertainties remain.

Q4. What is the “curse of knowledge”?
A: Once we know something, it becomes very difficult to imagine not knowing it. Clinicians may unconsciously assume patients understand terms like “inflammation” or “probability,” leading to gaps in communication.

Q5. How can clinicians overcome the curse of knowledge?
A: By deliberately checking their communication:

• Am I using plain, accessible language?
• Have I explained the “why,” not just the “what”?
• Does the patient see the decision as reasonable, not just authoritative?

Q6. How does patient context add complexity to articulating reasoning?
A: Patients bring fears, hopes, and personal priorities (e.g., valuing quality of life over longevity). Communicating reasoning isn’t just relaying facts - it’s integrating evidence with empathy and the patient’s goals.

Q7. Why is communication of reasoning important for patient care?
A: It improves:

• Trust and rapport (patients feel respected and safer).
• Shared decision-making (patients align care with their values).
• Safety (reduces miscommunication across professionals).
• Professional accountability (articulation sharpens clinicians’ clarity).

Q8. What practical strategies can clinicians use to improve articulation?
A:

• Use plain language first, then add detail if requested.
• Structure explanations (e.g., What we know - What it could be - Why we think this - What we’ll do next).
• Check understanding using teach-back.
• Balance detail with priorities (don’t overwhelm with every exclusion).
• Explicitly integrate patient values into the plan.

Q9. What is the “Four Ws” framework for explanation?
A:

• What we know - summarise findings.
• What it could be - list main possibilities.
• Why we think this is most likely - evidence and reasoning.
• What we’ll do next - plan, contingencies, follow-up.

---

References

Norman, GR, Eva, KW. 2010. Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 44(1), 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.x

Eva KW. 2005. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 39(1):98-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x. Erratum in: Med Educ. 2005 Jul;39(7):753. PMID: 15612906.

Croskerry, P. 2009. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Academic Medicine, 84(8), 1022-1028. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ace703

Klein, G. 1999. Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.

Croskerry P, Norman G. 2008. Overconfidence in clinical decision making. American Journal of Medicine, 121(5 Suppl), S24-S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.02.001

Vally ZI, Khammissa RAG, Feller G, Ballyram R, Beetge M, Feller L. 2003. Errors in clinical diagnosis: a narrative review. Journal of International Medical Research, 51(8):3000605231162798. doi: 10.1177/03000605231162798.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Cary J, Kurtz S. 2013. Integrating clinical communication with clinical reasoning and the broader medical curriculum. Patient Education and Counseling, 92(3): 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.07.007.

Epstein RM, Street RL, Jr. 2011. The values and value of patient-centered care. Annals of Family Medicine, 9(2), 100-103. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239

Talevski J, Wong Shee A, Rasmussen B, Kemp G, Beauchamp A. 2020. Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts. PLoS One, 15(4):e0231350. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231350.