Given the complexity of medical decision-making, as well as the diverse needs of populations and health systems, analytical thinking is a necessary but not sufficient enabler for appropriate medical practice.

It seems not always

DR. RICHARD SENELICK in his article (Teaching Doctors How to Think) discussed one article written in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Pat Croskerry from Dalhousie University in Canada. Dr. Richard stated

" There are two major ways in which we process information, intuitive (type I) and analytic (type II). Our Intuitive approach is automatic, and happens at an unconscious level. Croskerry describes this as the "Augenblick diagnosis" or that which is made in the blink of an eye.

The other mode of clinical thinking is Type II, the Analytic process. This is a conscious, slower, and deliberate process that is usually more reliable than the Intuitive process. In this process, we take time to analyze all of the information, order confirmatory tests, consult with colleagues and consider all of the possibilities. Although reliable, it requires a great deal of resources like CT and MRI scans, coronary angiography and numerous vials of blood. In truth, it is just not practical for every patient. We must trust our clinical, intuitive judgment because we cannot order a nuclear cardiac scan or coronary angiogram on every patient with chest pain. "

Dr. Croskerry believes that "all clinicians should develop the habit of conducting regular and frequent surveillance of their intuitive behavior. To paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined thought is not worth thinking."

Sourse (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/teaching-doctors-how-to-think/277555/)

Following.