Kyan SahbaGuestSheilaHostSarahHostAnd I'm not really sure how someone listens through these cases and doesn't want to pick up your book.
The section perfectly demonstrates the difference between knowing pediatric facts and thinking like a pediatric clinical specialist.
You don't jump to the diagnosis.
You model the reasoning process.
As two people very invested in preparation for the PCS exam, this is exactly the kind of thinking that we hope that people studying for this test develop.
They know the diagnoses.
They're trying to learn how specialists prioritize information, filter findings, and decide what matters next.
So I think that these frameworks make that invisible thought process visible.
And I think that's where the real value lies.
And then add on the evidence piece as well, right? Within all of these frameworks, within all of these thought processes, we want to make sure that we're then also layering that evidence-based piece on top of it.
So what does the evidence say in all of these different scenarios where evidence If it is ours to treat and if we are holding on to that patient, what is the best evidence-based intervention that we should be doing with them?
For someone trying to become a stronger pediatric clinical reasoner, what are three shifts in thinking that you'd encourage?

Every time you learn something, ask yourself, when would this change what I do? Turn the fact into a case.

The exam gives you a child and asks, what's next? So practice the what's next, not the what is.

If you can't explain why you choose one option over another, you've memorized it, you haven't learned it.

MyTI's endless why questions were annoying in the moment, and they're the best clinical reasoning training I ever got.
And I'm not really sure how someone listens through these cases and doesn't want to pick up your book.
The section perfectly demonstrates the difference between knowing pediatric facts and thinking like a pediatric clinical specialist.
You don't jump to the diagnosis.
You model the reasoning process.
As two people very invested in preparation for the PCS exam, this is exactly the kind of thinking that we hope that people studying for this test develop.
They know the diagnoses.
They're trying to learn how specialists prioritize information, filter findings, and decide what matters next.
So I think that these frameworks make that invisible thought process visible.
And I think that's where the real value lies.
And then add on the evidence piece as well, right? Within all of these frameworks, within all of these thought processes, we want to make sure that we're then also layering that evidence-based piece on top of it.
So what does the evidence say in all of these different scenarios where evidence If it is ours to treat and if we are holding on to that patient, what is the best evidence-based intervention that we should be doing with them?
For someone trying to become a stronger pediatric clinical reasoner, what are three shifts in thinking that you'd encourage?

Every time you learn something, ask yourself, when would this change what I do? Turn the fact into a case.

The exam gives you a child and asks, what's next? So practice the what's next, not the what is.

If you can't explain why you choose one option over another, you've memorized it, you haven't learned it.

MyTI's endless why questions were annoying in the moment, and they're the best clinical reasoning training I ever got.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.