Do this once per case

0 · NotebookLM Setup

Create a new notebook.

0.1Source Grounding#setup

Using only the uploaded case documents as your source, confirm: (1) patient age/sex/presenting complaint, (2) date range covered by the notes, (3) which data types are present (history, exam, labs, imaging, medications, progression notes), (4) any obvious gaps in the documentation. Flag anything you infer versus anything explicitly stated in the source.

  1. 1 Using only the uploaded case documents as your source, confirm the patient's age, sex, and presenting complaint.
  2. 2 Using only the uploaded case documents as your source, state the date range covered by the notes.
  3. 3 Using only the uploaded case documents as your source, list which data types are present: history, exam, labs, imaging, medications, and progression notes.
  4. 4 Using only the uploaded case documents as your source, identify any obvious gaps in the documentation, and flag anything you infer versus anything explicitly stated.
Note on gaps: if a prompt below asks for something your source doesn't contain — timestamps for a lag calculation, a medication list if you only uploaded an admission note — NotebookLM should say so rather than invent it. A "not documented in source" answer is correct, not a failed prompt.
Tier 1 · Recall · Organize · Recognize

1 · Intern Level

Reproduce and structure what's in the chart. Build the illness script. No leaps beyond the data.

Studio tool pairing: after these prompts, use the Studio panel's Flashcards and Quiz generators on this notebook for spaced, self-timed recall drilling — one click, no prompt needed.
1.1Chart Recall & Illness Script#intern

From the uploaded case only: (1) Summarize the history of presenting illness in 3 sentences. (2) List all active problems as a problem list. (3) List all current medications with dose/route/frequency as documented. (4) Pull out the 5 most abnormal lab or vital sign values and state the normal range for each. (5) In one sentence each, state what a "textbook" illness script for the leading diagnosis looks like, and note where this case matches or deviates from it.

  1. 1From the uploaded case only, summarize the history of presenting illness in 3 sentences.
  2. 2From the uploaded case only, list all active problems as a problem list.
  3. 3From the uploaded case only, list all current medications with dose, route, and frequency as documented.
  4. 4From the uploaded case only, pull out the 5 most abnormal lab or vital sign values and state the normal range for each.
  5. 5From the uploaded case only, in one sentence, state what a textbook illness script for the leading diagnosis looks like, and note where this case matches or deviates from it.
1.2Self-Quiz#quiz

Quiz me: ask me one question at a time about this case's key facts (chief complaint, timeline, vitals trend, medication list). Wait for my answer before giving the next question. Tell me if I got it right before moving on.

Self-check
Tier 2 · Differential · Mechanism · Management

2 · Resident Level

Move from what to why and what next. Build and prioritize a differential; connect pathophysiology to the data; justify next steps.

Studio tool pairing: generate a Mind Map from the notebook to visualize how each differential branches from specific findings and mechanisms — useful for spotting where two diagnoses share a root finding but diverge downstream.
2.1Ranked Differential & Mechanism#resident

Based only on the uploaded case: (1) Generate a ranked differential diagnosis (top 5) with one supporting and one refuting data point for each, drawn from the source. (2) For the leading diagnosis, explain the underlying pathophysiological mechanism and map it to at least 3 specific findings in this patient. (3) Identify the single most useful next investigation to narrow the differential, and explain why it discriminates better than the alternatives. (4) Flag any drug-drug or drug-disease interaction risk in the current medication list, using only what's in the source.

  1. 1Based only on the uploaded case, generate a ranked differential diagnosis (top 5) with one supporting and one refuting data point for each, drawn from the source.
  2. 2Based only on the uploaded case, for the leading diagnosis, explain the underlying pathophysiological mechanism and map it to at least 3 specific findings in this patient.
  3. 3Based only on the uploaded case, identify the single most useful next investigation to narrow the differential, and explain why it discriminates better than the alternatives.
  4. 4Based only on the uploaded case, flag any drug-drug or drug-disease interaction risk in the current medication list, using only what's in the source.
2.2Devil's Advocate#devils-advocate

Play devil's advocate: challenge my leading diagnosis. Give me the strongest argument, drawn from this case's actual data, for why an alternative diagnosis on the list could be right instead. Make me defend my choice before agreeing or disagreeing.

2.3Overnight Deterioration Drill#overnight-challenge

If this patient deteriorated overnight based on the trajectory in the notes, walk me through: (1) what bedside check I'd do first, (2) what immediate step I'd take, (3) at what point I'd escalate — reasoning only from what's documented, not hypotheticals outside the source.

  1. 1If this patient deteriorated overnight based on the trajectory in the notes, tell me what bedside check I'd do first — reasoning only from what's documented.
  2. 2If this patient deteriorated overnight based on the trajectory in the notes, tell me what immediate step I'd take — reasoning only from what's documented.
  3. 3If this patient deteriorated overnight based on the trajectory in the notes, tell me at what point I'd escalate — reasoning only from what's documented.
Self-check
Tier 3 · Systems · Evidence · Teaching

3 · Attending Level

Step back from the single case to evidence quality, systems factors, cost/value, and what the case teaches others.

Studio tool pairing: use Reports to generate a polished teaching document (briefing doc or case report), and Data Table for a structured, exportable comparison of findings vs. guideline-recommended thresholds.
3.1Evidence Appraisal & Pre-Mortem#attending

Acting as a senior clinician reviewing this case for teaching purposes: (1) Critically appraise the management plan in the notes against current evidence-based practice — where does it align, where might it lag? (2) Identify any high-value-care issue: an investigation or intervention that may be low-yield or a necessary one that appears delayed or missing. (3) Run a brief pre-mortem: if this case had a bad outcome, what is the most plausible failure point in the diagnostic or management pathway? (4) State one clinical pearl this case teaches that would be worth passing to a junior trainee.

  1. 1Acting as a senior clinician reviewing this case for teaching purposes, critically appraise the management plan in the notes against current evidence-based practice — where does it align, where might it lag?
  2. 2Acting as a senior clinician reviewing this case for teaching purposes, identify any high-value-care issue: an investigation or intervention that may be low-yield, or a necessary one that appears delayed or missing.
  3. 3Acting as a senior clinician reviewing this case for teaching purposes, run a brief pre-mortem: if this case had a bad outcome, what is the most plausible failure point in the diagnostic or management pathway?
  4. 4Acting as a senior clinician reviewing this case for teaching purposes, state one clinical pearl this case teaches that would be worth passing to a junior trainee.
3.2Critical-Awareness Lens#critical-awareness

Apply a critical-awareness lens to this case as documented: (1) What anchoring or premature-closure risk is visible in how the diagnosis was reached? (2) What confirmation bias might have shaped which follow-up tests were ordered? (3) What would a methodological critic say about gaps in this documentation? (4) What, if anything, in this case's reasoning should NOT be generalized to other patients?

  1. 1Apply a critical-awareness lens to this case as documented: what anchoring or premature-closure risk is visible in how the diagnosis was reached?
  2. 2Apply a critical-awareness lens to this case as documented: what confirmation bias might have shaped which follow-up tests were ordered?
  3. 3Apply a critical-awareness lens to this case as documented: what would a methodological critic say about gaps in this documentation?
  4. 4Apply a critical-awareness lens to this case as documented: what, if anything, in this case's reasoning should NOT be generalized to other patients?
3.3Morning-Report Summary#morning-report

Write a 200-word case summary suitable for a morning report or M&M-style discussion: the clinical problem, the key decision point, what went well, and one system-level or educational takeaway — grounded only in the uploaded source.

Self-check
Optional closing step · run after all three tiers

4 · Cross-Level Synthesis

Consolidate the session — see how the reasoning actually changed as you moved up the tiers.

4.1Session Synthesis#synthesis

Compare how the answers changed across the Intern, Resident, and Attending prompts I ran on this case. (1) What did each level add that the previous one didn't? (2) Where did earlier-level reasoning turn out to be incomplete or need revision at a higher level? (3) What's the one thing a learner at each level should take away from this case?

  1. 1Compare how the answers changed across the Intern, Resident, and Attending prompts I ran on this case: what did each level add that the previous one didn't?
  2. 2Compare how the answers changed across the Intern, Resident, and Attending prompts I ran on this case: where did earlier-level reasoning turn out to be incomplete or need revision at a higher level?
  3. 3Compare how the answers changed across the Intern, Resident, and Attending prompts I ran on this case: what's the one thing a learner at each level should take away from this case?
Documentation practice · any tier

5 · SOAP Note Practice

Translate the case into standard clinical documentation format — a disciplined write-up exercise, distinct from the reasoning tiers above.

5.1SOAP Note#soap

Using only the uploaded case, write a SOAP note: (1) Subjective — the presenting complaint and history as documented. (2) Objective — vitals, exam findings, and lab/imaging results as recorded. (3) Assessment — the working diagnosis or problem list as it stands in the source. (4) Plan — next steps, treatments, and follow-up as documented, distinguishing completed actions from pending ones.

  1. 1Using only the uploaded case, write the Subjective section of a SOAP note — the presenting complaint and history as documented.
  2. 2Using only the uploaded case, write the Objective section of a SOAP note — vitals, exam findings, and lab/imaging results as recorded.
  3. 3Using only the uploaded case, write the Assessment section of a SOAP note — the working diagnosis or problem list as it stands in the source.
  4. 4Using only the uploaded case, write the Plan section of a SOAP note — next steps, treatments, and follow-up as documented, distinguishing completed actions from pending ones.
Self-check