Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part I. Clinical reasoning supervision and educational diagnosis

Clinical supervision in medical education: A citation analysis

PURPOSE

Medical education relies on clinical supervision for critical functions, including trainee assessment and ensuring patient safety. Yet, there is substantial variance in supervision, which has led to calls for a shared definition of the concept and guidelines to inform practice. AMEE Guide No. 27 provided these desired elements and is highly cited, suggesting that translation and utilization of the Guide's knowledge is suboptimal. This study investigates utilization by systematically characterizing citations to the Guide and by describing translation of its recommendations in relation to supervision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Citations were identified using Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The authors coded all citations and conducted a subanalysis of studies specific to supervision.

RESULTS

583 studies were identified; 268 met inclusion criteria for general analysis of which 167 studies were further analyzed. Most studies reiterated the Guide's characterization of effective supervision, but few demonstrate how these recommendations inform innovations in supervisory practice.

CONCLUSION

Translation of the Guide's recommendations regarding clinical supervision appears limited. Future research should consider the extent of knowledge translation occurring in clinical supervision literature as well as AMEE Guides. Increased attention to knowledge translation in medical education may benefit the distribution of similar knowledge products.

Development and Validation of a Formative Assessment Tool for Nephrology Fellows' Clinical Reasoning

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors are commonly driven by failures in clinical reasoning. Deficits in clinical reasoning are common among graduate medical learners, including nephrology fellows. We created and validated an instrument to assess clinical reasoning in a national cohort of nephrology fellows and established performance thresholds for remedial coaching.

METHODS

Experts in nephrology education and clinical reasoning remediation designed an instrument to measure clinical reasoning through a written patient encounter note from a web-based, simulated AKI consult. The instrument measured clinical reasoning in three domains: problem representation, differential diagnosis with justification, and diagnostic plan with justification. Inter-rater reliability was established in a pilot cohort ( n =7 raters) of first-year nephrology fellows using a two-way random effects agreement intraclass correlation coefficient model. The instrument was then administered to a larger cohort of first-year fellows to establish performance standards for coaching using the Hofstee method ( n =6 raters).

RESULTS

In the pilot cohort, there were 15 fellows from four training program, and in the study cohort, there were 61 fellows from 20 training programs. The intraclass correlation coefficients for problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 0.90, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively. Passing thresholds (% total points) in problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 59%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Fifty-nine percent ( n =36) met the threshold for remedial coaching in at least one domain.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide validity evidence for a simulated AKI consult for formative assessment of clinical reasoning in nephrology fellows. Most fellows met criteria for coaching in at least one of three reasoning domains, demonstrating a need for learner assessment and instruction in clinical reasoning.

Development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity in clinical teachers via distance learning: a mixed methods study

Clinical reasoning is the cornerstone to healthcare practice and teaching it appropriately is of utmost importance. Yet there is little formal training for clinical supervisors in supervising this reasoning process. Distance education provides interesting opportunities for continuous professional development of healthcare professionals. This mixed methods study aimed at gaining in-depth understanding about whether and how clinical teachers can develop complex pedagogical competencies through participation in a Massive Open Online Course on the supervision of clinical reasoning (MOOC SCR). Participants self-assed their clinical supervision skills before and after partaking in the MOOC SCR through the Maastricht Clinical Teachers Questionnaire. Item scores and the distribution of response proportions before and after participation were compared using paired t-tests and McNemar's tests respectively. In parallel, the evolution of a subset of MOOC participants' pedagogical practice and posture was explored via semi-structured interviews throughout and beyond their MOOC participation using simulated and personal situational recalls. The verbatim were analysed with standard thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative findings converged and their integration demonstrated that partaking in the MOOC SCR promoted the development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity with the participants. This was quantitatively evidenced by significantly higher self-assessed supervision skills and corresponding attitudes after completing the MOOC. The qualitative data provided rich descriptions of how this progression in pedagogical practice and posture occurred in the field and how it was shaped by participants' interaction with the MOOC's content and their motivations to progress. Our findings provide evidence for the development of pedagogical skills and corresponding attitudes for the supervision of clinical reasoning through participation in the MOOC SCR and contribute to the literature body on the opportunities that distance learning provides for the development of pedagogical competencies. The extent to which the pedagogical underpinnings of the MOOC contributed to these developments remains to be determined.

A comprehensive approach to identify challenges for clinical reasoning development in undergraduate dental students and their potential solutions

INTRODUCTION

Clinical reasoning is a core competence in health professions that impacts the ability to solve patients' health problems. Due to its relevance, it is necessary to identify difficulties arising from different sources that affect clinical reasoning development in students. The aim of this study was to explore a comprehensive approach to identify challenges for clinical reasoning development in undergraduate dental students and their potential solutions.

METHODS

Mixed methods were used in four stages: (1) students and clinical teachers focus groups to identify challenges to clinical reasoning development; (2) literature review to explore potential solutions for these challenges; (3) Delphi technique for teacher consensus on pertinence and feasibility of solutions (1-5 scale); and (4) teachers' self-perception of their ability to implement the solutions.

RESULTS

Three categories and seven subcategories of challenges were identified: (I) educational context factors influencing the clinical reasoning process; (II) teacher's role in clinical reasoning development; and (III) student factors influencing the clinical reasoning process. From 134 publications identified, 53 were selected for review, resulting in 10 potential solutions. Through two Delphi rounds, teachers rated the potential solutions very highly in terms of relevance (4.50-4.85) and feasibility (3.50-4.29). Finally, a prioritisation ranking of these solutions was generated using their scores for relevance, feasibility, and teachers' self-perception of their ability to implement them.

CONCLUSIONS

The present comprehensive approach identified challenges for clinical reasoning development in dental students and their potential solutions, perceived as relevant and feasible by teachers, requiring further research and follow-up actions to address them.

Design, Implementation, and Outcomes of an Interprofessional Mobile Web Application for Preceptors for Challenging Issues

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop and assess an easily accessible interprofessional mobile web application to assist preceptors with challenging teaching and learning situations.

METHODS

Phase 1 was a modified Delphi process of 48 advanced practice nursing, dentistry, medicine, and pharmacy preceptors to determine the content of the application. Phase 2 consisted of 12 preceptors from the 4 disciplines piloting a prototype to refine the tool using design-thinking principles. Feedback was analyzed using inductive coding and thematic analysis. Phase 3 evaluated the impact of the final tool on 80 preceptors' satisfaction, knowledge, self-efficacy, and perception of behavior change.

RESULTS

Consensus on 10 topics was reached in the following 3 themes: feedback and communication, clinical and professional development of learners, and precepting efficiency. Preceptors rated the tool as efficient and applicable. Features perceived as useful included concise and applicable content that was easy to navigate with practical video examples. Features to improve included academic jargon, length of content, and lack of connectivity with other preceptors. Knowledge and self-efficacy improved after the use of the refined tool. Change in perceptions of behavior after 1 month was mixed, with a significant change in accessing resources to address challenging situations and regularly reflecting on challenging situations and no significant change in awareness, frequency, or success in managing challenging situations.

CONCLUSION

An interprofessional mobile web application for challenging teaching and learning situations developed through a modified Delphi process was deemed efficient and relevant and demonstrated positive knowledge and self-efficacy change.

Promoting medical student's clinical reasoning during COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

The development of students' clinical reasoning skills should be a consideration in the design of instruction and evaluation in medical education. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several changes in the medical curriculum have been implemented in promoting clinical reasoning. This study aims to explore medical students' perceptions and experiences with the clinical reasoning curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine their skills development.

METHODS

The study used a mixed-method design with a concurrent approach. A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare and examine the relationship between the outcomes of the structured oral examination (SOE) and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI). Then, the qualitative method was used. A focus group discussion using a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions was conducted, then the verbatim transcript was subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There is an increase in SOE and DTI scores between second-year to fourth-year students. The diagnostic thinking domains and SOE are significantly correlated (r=0.302, 0.313, and 0.241 with p<0.05). The three primary themes from the qualitative analysis are perceptions regarding clinical reasoning, clinical reasoning activities, and the learning component.

CONCLUSION

Even if students are still studying throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, their clinical reasoning skills can improve. The clinical reasoning and diagnostic thinking skills of medical students increase as the length of the school year increases. Online case-based learning and assessment support the development of clinical reasoning skills. The skills are supported in their development by positive attitudes toward faculty, peers, case type, and prior knowledge.

The challenge of cognitive science for medical diagnosis

The historical tendency to view medicine as both an art and a science may have contributed to a disinclination among clinicians towards cognitive science. In particular, this has had an impact on the approach towards the diagnostic process which is a barometer of clinical decision-making behaviour and is increasingly seen as a yardstick of clinician calibration and performance. The process itself is more complicated and complex than was previously imagined, with multiple variables that are difficult to predict, are interactive, and show nonlinearity. They appear to characterise a complex adaptive system. Many aspects of the diagnostic process, including the psychophysics of signal detection and discrimination, ergonomics, probability theory, decision analysis, factor analysis, causal analysis and more recent developments in judgement and decision-making (JDM), especially including the domain of heuristics and cognitive and affective biases, appear fundamental to a good understanding of it. A preliminary analysis of factors such as manifestness of illness and others that may impede clinicians' awareness and understanding of these issues is proposed here. It seems essential that medical trainees be explicitly and systematically exposed to specific areas of cognitive science during the undergraduate curriculum, and learn to incorporate them into clinical reasoning and decision-making. Importantly, this understanding is needed for the development of cognitive bias mitigation and improved calibration of JDM in clinical practice.

Facilitating Development of Problem-Solving Skills in Veterinary Learners with Clinical Examples

This paper seeks to open discussion on the teaching of problem-solving skills in veterinary learners. We start by defining the term problem before discussing what constitutes problem-solving. For veterinary medical learners, problem-solving techniques are similar to those of decision-making and are integral to clinical reasoning. Problem-solving requires the veterinary learner to organize information logically to allow application of prior or new knowledge in arriving at a solution. The decision-making must encompass choices that provide the most beneficial and economical approach. In a modification of an existing protocol, we suggest the inclusion of the 5 elements: (1) define the problem list; (2) create an associated timeline; (3) describe the (anatomical) system involved or the pathophysiological principle applicable to the case; (4) propose management for the case; and (5) identify unique features of the case. During problem-solving activities, the instructor should take the role of facilitator rather than teacher. Skills utilized in the facilitation of problem-solving by learners include coaching, differential reinforcement, effective feedback, modelling and 'think out loud'. Effective feedback must inform learners of their progress and performance, as this is fundamental to continued learning and motivation to succeed. In order to put the above into context, we end with an example case scenario showing how we would approach the teaching of problem-solving to veterinary learners.

Development of a script concordance test to assess clinical reasoning in a pharmacy curriculum

INTRODUCTION

Clinical reasoning is a vital skill for student pharmacists in the provision of patient-centered care, but these skills are often difficult to assess in the didactic curriculum. A script concordance test (SCT) is an innovative assessment method that can be used to assess clinical reasoning skills. The objective of this study was to develop and refine an SCT to assess clinical reasoning skills of third year student pharmacists (P3s).

METHODS

An SCT was written and administered to P3s. Pharmacy practice faculty members served as the expert group. The SCT was scored and Rasch analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The SCT included 20 case vignettes and 60 questions. Test reliability was 0.34 with mean square values for all items between 0.7 and 1.3. Forty-two questions had a difficulty score between 0 and - 1 logits, indicating there were multiple questions with similar difficulty levels. Two case vignettes and 43.3% of questions (n = 26) were revised to enhance clarity and decrease ambiguity.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCT is a tool to assess clinical reasoning in the didactic curriculum. Faculty can create the SCT and use statistical methods such as Rasch analysis to assess validity and reliability of the SCT.

Post graduate remediation programs in medicine: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Recognizing that physicians may struggle to achieve knowledge, skills, attitudes and or conduct at one or more stages during their training has highlighted the importance of the 'deliberate practice of improving performance through practising beyond one's comfort level under guidance'. However, variations in physician, program, contextual and healthcare and educational systems complicate efforts to create a consistent approach to remediation. Balancing the inevitable disparities in approaches and settings with the need for continuity and effective oversight of the remediation process, as well as the context and population specific nature of remediation, this review will scrutinise the remediation of physicians in training to better guide the design, structuring and oversight of new remediation programs.

METHODS

Krishna's Systematic Evidence Based Approach is adopted to guide this Systematic Scoping Review (SSR in SEBA) to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of this review. A structured search for articles on remediation programs for licenced physicians who have completed their pre-registration postings and who are in training positions published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2021 in PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, ASSIA, HMIC, DARE and Web of Science databases was carried out. The included articles were concurrently thematically and content analysed using SEBA's Split Approach. Similarities in the identified themes and categories were combined in the Jigsaw Perspective and compared with the tabulated summaries of included articles in the Funnelling Process to create the domains that will guide discussions.

RESULTS

The research team retrieved 5512 abstracts, reviewed 304 full-text articles and included 101 articles. The domains identified were characteristics, indications, frameworks, domains, enablers and barriers and unique features of remediation in licenced physicians in training programs.

CONCLUSION

Building upon our findings and guided by Hauer et al. approach to remediation and Taylor and Hamdy's Multi-theories Model, we proffer a theoretically grounded 7-stage evidence-based remediation framework to enhance understanding of remediation in licenced physicians in training programs. We believe this framework can guide program design and reframe remediation's role as an integral part of training programs and a source of support and professional, academic, research, interprofessional and personal development.

Enhancing the "What" and "Why" of the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process With the "How" of Clinical Reasoning

Objectives. Clinical reasoning is integral to the provision of patient-centered care as outlined in the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process (PPCP). However, the PPCP was not created to foster clinical reasoning in student pharmacists and cannot be the sole tool used to characterize or cultivate these skills. This article describes elements of clinical reasoning, the relationship between clinical reasoning and PPCP, and concepts from the clinical reasoning literature that should inform the teaching of clinical reasoning skills.Findings. Key elements of the PPCP were identified in clinical reasoning definitions, but differences emerged. The literature supports clinical reasoning as a bidirectional, fluid process that is highly collaborative. Effective clinical reasoning requires multiple types of "thinking," interaction with others and the environment, self-assessment, and a tolerance for nuance or ambiguity. Teaching strategies can be used in the didactic and experiential setting to target the cognitive and contextual factors associated with clinical reasoning.Summary. Educators should consult the literature to enhance our understanding of clinical reasoning in seeking to teach, model, and foster these skills in our students. Future scholarship should include the development of models to support clinical reasoning within the profession of pharmacy, adoption and experimentation with clinical reasoning teaching techniques, and valuation of the utility of various assessment tools and processes.

Thinking differently - Students' cognitive processes when answering two different formats of written question

BACKGROUND

Single-best answer questions (SBAQs) are common but are susceptible to cueing. Very short answer questions (VSAQs) could be an alternative, and we sought to determine if students' cognitive processes varied across question types and whether students with different performance levels used different methods for answering questions.

METHODS

We undertook a 'think aloud' study, interviewing 21 final year medical students at five UK medical schools. Each student described their thought processes and methods used for eight questions of each type. Responses were coded and quantified to determine the relative frequency with which each method was used, denominated on the number of times a method could have been used.

RESULTS

Students were more likely to use analytical reasoning methods (specifically identifying key features) when answering VSAQs. The use of test-taking behaviours was more common for SBAQs; students frequently used the answer options to help them reach an answer. Students acknowledged uncertainty more frequently when answering VSAQs. Analytical reasoning was more commonly used by high-performing students compared with low-performing students.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that VSAQs encourage more authentic clinical reasoning strategies. Differences in cognitive approaches used highlight the need for focused approaches to teaching clinical reasoning and dealing with uncertainty.

Development of a Clinical Judgment Scale for Japanese Nurses

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to assess the clinical judgment of nurses based on the clinical judgment process.

METHOD

Based on a qualitative analysis of interviews with specialized and certified nurses and extant literature, a scale comprising 44 question items was created. A questionnaire survey was conducted with 1,444 nurses working in 28 general hospitals, psychiatric wards, cardiac care units, and intensive care units in Japan.

RESULTS

Valid responses were obtained from 610 nurses. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 23 items extracted by item analysis, and two factors, "theoretical and practical reasoning" and "grasping the condition by observation," were extracted. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed the fit of the model. Cronbach's alpha confidence factor was 0.943 for the first factor and 0.924 for the second factor.

CONCLUSION

These results support the factor validity and reliability of the clinical judgment scale. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2021;52(8):383-391.].

Management of residents in difficulty in a Swiss general internal medicine outpatient clinic: Change is necessary!

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Residents in difficulty are a major cause for concern in medical education, with a prevalence of 7-15%. They are often detected late in their training and cannot make use of remediation plans. Nowadays, most training hospitals in Switzerland do not have a specific program to identify and manage residents in difficulty. The aim of the study was to explore the challenges perceived by physicians regarding the process of identifying, diagnosing, and supporting residents in difficulty in a structured and programmatic way. We explored perceptions of physicians at different hierarchical levels (residents (R), Chief residents (CR), attending physicians (A), Chief Physician (CP)) in order to better understand these challenges.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study between December 2015 and July 2016. We asked volunteers from the Primary Care Division of the Geneva University Hospitals to partake to three focus groups (with CR, A, R) and one interview with the division's CP. We transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed the three focus groups and the interview, using a content thematic approach and Fishbein's conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We identified similarities and differences in the challenges of the management of residents in difficulty on a programmatic way amongst physicians of different hierarchical levels. Our main findings: Supervisors (CR, A, CP) have good identification skills of residents in difficulty, but they did not put in place systematic remediation strategies.Supervisors (CR, A) were concerned about managing residents in difficulty. They were aware of the possible adverse effects on patient care, but "feared to harm" resident's career by documenting a poor institutional assessment.Residents "feared to share" their own difficulties with their supervisors. They thought that it would impact their career negatively.The four physician's hierarchical level reported environmental constraints (lack of funding, time constraint, lack of time and resources…).

CONCLUSION

Our results add two perspectives to specialized recommendations regarding the implementation of remediation programs for residents in difficulty. The first revolves around the need to identify and fully understand not only the beliefs but also the implicit norms and the feeling of self-efficacy that are shared by teachers and that are likely to motivate them to engage in the management of residents in difficulty. The second emphasizes the importance of analyzing these elements that constitute the context for a change and of identifying, in close contact with the heads of the institutions, which factors may favor or hinder it. This research action process has fostered awareness and discussions at different levels. Since then, various actions and processes have been put in place at the Faculty of Medicine in Geneva.

Faculty preceptors' strategies for teaching clinical reasoning skills in the advanced pharmacy practice experience setting

INTRODUCTION

Clinical reasoning is essential to providing quality patient care. However, advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) students may struggle with the real-life aspects of patient care, and it may be difficult to quickly identify these students in order to make meaningful interventions. The purpose of this study was to explore pharmacy faculty preceptors' strategies for identifying gaps and teaching clinical reasoning in the APPE setting.

METHODS

A qualitative study utilizing 30-min, one-on-one phone interviews was conducted with faculty members from two schools of pharmacy. Faculty participants were invited based on their APPE preceptor role and expertise in adult general medicine. Interview questions collected faculty demographics and reflections on evaluation and instruction of clinical reasoning skills. Demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was completed to identify themes from qualitative interview data.

RESULTS

Fifteen faculty preceptors participated. The cohort had an average of 17.1 pharmacy practice years and an average of 11.9 faculty member years. Interviews yielded a 7735-word document for data analysis, which resulted in 11 themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explored pharmacy faculty preceptors' strategies for identifying gaps in clinical reasoning and their instructional methods to improve those skills, which resulted in 11 themes. Future directions include implementation of a standardized clinical reasoning assessment tool in the APPE setting and exploration of targeted educational interventions.

Severity, Irritability, Nature, Stage, and Stability (SINSS): A clinical perspective

Clinical reasoning errors in health-care can be mitigated with the use of systematic strategies and tools. One of these strategies is the SINSS construct, an acronym for Severity, Irritability, Nature, Stage, and Stability. The construct of SINSS appears in several textbooks and peer-reviewed articles. However, it has been inconsistently defined and applied in clinical practice. In this clinical perspective, the terms of the SINSS construct are defined in detail and their application to clinical practice is discussed. Current research showing the application of SINSS as a whole in clinical practice and educational settings is also presented. Recommendations for future application of SINSS are provided to advance the study of clinical reasoning and help minimize diagnostic, prognostic, and interventional clinical errors. The systematic use of SINSS allows the clinician to gain a thorough understanding of the patient's condition and symptoms, which can lead to a well-tolerated and appropriately tailored physical examination and intervention. Additionally, the proper use of this construct can result in more optimal patient outcomes, as well as provide a structure for the mentor and learner in helping uncover errors in the learner's clinical reasoning process.

Developing a process to manage challenges encountered by experiential education administrators

INTRODUCTION

This study explored preceptor and student related issues reported in pharmacy experiential education settings and solutions that experiential education administrators (EEAs) applied to inform a process to manage these challenges.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study was conducted in two phases. In phase one, five EEAs from three schools of pharmacy collected quantitative and qualitative data over a two-year period on issues reported by students and preceptors and the solutions EEAs employed. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyze quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. Interviews with six EEAs from four schools were completed in phase two. An additional school was added in phase two. Open coding, pattern coding, and summative analysis were completed on interview data.

RESULTS

Preceptors and students reported 156 and 65 issues, respectively. The most common issues reported were student reliability/responsibility (22, 14%) and preceptor communication (13, 20%). The most frequently applied solutions were coach preceptor (51, 24%) and meet with student (20, 24%). Interviews revealed more information about the strategies EEAs used. Approaches included reactive responses such as talking to and coaching preceptors or students. Preventative strategies were desired, such as tracking data and training.

CONCLUSIONS

Results informed two approaches that EEAs can employ to resolve student and preceptor issues. In the proactive process, issues are tracked to inform student and preceptor development. The reactive approach involves meeting with the preceptor or student, gathering information from both parties, coaching the preceptor or student, and involving other administrators as needed for serious concerns.

Learning strategies used by undergraduate nursing students in the context of a digitial educational strategy based on script concordance: A descriptive study

BACKGROUND

the digital educational strategy based on script concordance is an educational method that has been attracting increasing attention in healthcare education programs to fostering the development of clinical reasoning. It includes a digitized Script Concordance Test with incorporated expert feedback. However, the learning strategies required of students in the context of its use remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the learning strategies that undergraduate nursing students need to use in the context of the digital educational strategy based on script concordance.

METHOD

A qualitative descriptive design was used to identify student learning strategies. Data was collected using an online questionnaire and semi-directed focus group interviews. Bégin's taxonomy provided the framework for linking the data collected to learning strategies required of students.

RESULTS

Forty-four students participated in the study. Results show that when using a digital educational strategy based on script concordance, students are called to rely on their nascent scripts in order to select the data in short ill-defined clinical vignettes, evaluate new information repeatedly, anticipate microjudgments, and thus, gradually increase their knowledge and refine their scripts. Viewing the experts' feedback and consulting the referencing tools helped students self-monitor their knowledge, a key metacognitive strategy to learning clinical reasoning. Completed individually or with peers, the digital educational strategy could be used to learn a particular concept or as an integrative activity before an evaluation.

CONCLUSION

This original study has allowed us to link nursing clinical reasoning teaching conditions to the learning strategies used to develop this competency. Study results inform instructors about digital educational strategy based on script concordance to make it complementary with other educational strategies to better support complex learning of nursing clinical reasoning.

Clinical reasoning: exploring its characteristics and enhancing its learning

Clinical reasoning is an extensive and intricate field, dealing with the process of thinking and decision making in practice. Its study can be quite challenging because it is context and task dependent. Educational frameworks such as the conscious competence model and the dual process reasoning model have been developed to help its understanding. To enhance the learning of clinical reasoning, there are significant areas that can be targeted through learning processes. These include knowledge adequacy; ability to gather appropriate patient data; use of proper reasoning strategies to address specific clinical questions; and the ability to reflect and evaluate on decisions taken, together with the role of the wider practice community and the activity of professional socialisation. This article explores the characteristics of clinical reasoning and delves deeper into the various strategies that prove useful for learning.

Empirical comparison of three assessment instruments of clinical reasoning capability in 230 medical students

BACKGROUND

Several instruments intend to measure clinical reasoning capability, yet we lack evidence contextualizing their scores. The authors compared three clinical reasoning instruments [Clinical Reasoning Task (CRT), Patient Note Scoring rubric (PNS), and Summary Statement Assessment Rubric (SSAR)] using Messick's convergent validity framework in pre-clinical medical students. Scores were compared to a validated clinical reasoning instrument, Clinical Data Interpretation (CDI).

METHOD

Authors administered CDI and the first clinical case to 235 students. Sixteen randomly selected students (four from each CDI quartile) wrote a note on a second clinical case. Each note was scored with CRT, PNS, and SSAR. Final scores were compared to CDI.

RESULTS

CDI scores did not significantly correlate with any other instrument. A large, significant correlation between PNS and CRT was seen (r = 0.71; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the tested instruments outperformed the others when using CDI as a standard measure of clinical reasoning. Differing strengths of association between clinical reasoning instruments suggest they each measure different components of the clinical reasoning construct. The large correlation between CRT and PNS scoring suggests areas of novice clinical reasoning capability, which may not be yet captured in CDI or SSAR, which are weighted toward knowledge synthesis and hypothesis testing.

Medical student education in transfusion medicine, part II: Moving forward to building up a "Know How" education program in transfusion medicine for under-graduate medical students

There is a general trend in changing paradigm in teaching medicine; the emerging concept relies on a competence-based approach. Transfusion is either a discipline or a subsidiary of others depending on the countries and systems; this variability can be explained because transfusion is a medical care that is transdisciplinary. As a collective of professionals in both transfusion medicine practice and education, authors aim to propose a revision of the way education in transfusion medicine is delivered in this era of the 'global competency approach'. They advocate in favor of a Know How on 5 key issues: Diagnosing the patient condition in line with the Patient Blood Management principles; Facing acute blood loss; Addressing compatibility and avoiding immunization; Seeking for maximized benefits and dampening complications; and Inlaying competence within global health care issues, also comprising od economy. The methods used would be those developed for medical education at large, such as assessment tools. The global objective is to deliver the necessary competence to manage patients by an intern/resident. At the end of the curriculum, students should be able to self-evaluate the following items: 1) Do I know why my patient is anemic, thrombocytopenic, bleeding….? 2) Do I know the best approach to treat anemia, thrombocytopenia, bleeding (including the "no treatment" option)? 3) Do I know whether a transfusion approach is appropriate for my patients? 4) Do I know how to evaluate and anticipate benefits from blood transfusion and to avoid side-effects in the patient? 5) Do I know how to avoid unnecessary use of the products?

[How to formalise the supervision of learning of clinical reasoning]

Since clinical reasoning is central to most decisions made in the clinic, it is essential to teach it with the greatest relevance. Knowing that around 10% of learners encounter major difficulties in clinical reasoning during their course, training supervisors in effective pedagogical interventions is crucial. Here we summarize the methods allowing supervisors to identify errors of clinical reasoning in medical students and interns and we explain remediation techniques adapted to the types of error identified. Access to short illustrative videos of a MOOC (Massive Open On line Course) devoted to the supervision of clinical reasoning constitutes practical help for supervisors who are not expert in the complexity of medical pedagogy at bedside.

Teaching and learning clinical reasoning: a teacher's toolbox to meet different learning needs

Clinical reasoning is an essential part of medical practice and therefore should be an important part of clinical teaching. However, it has been and is still a challenge for clinical teachers to support learners in the development of their clinical reasoning skills. As learners progress in clerkship, so do their learning needs. As a result, teachers need multiple tools to foster the development of clinical reasoning and should know when and why to use them. This article presents tools gathered as part of a clinical teacher's toolbox aimed at coaching learners towards the next step in their clinical reasoning development as well as helping teachers diagnose clinical reasoning difficulties and meet the diverse learning needs of their learners. The article focuses on three tools that were developed by faculty at the University of Sherbrooke Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences: the iSNAPPS-OMP Technique, the Anticipatory Supervision Technique and the Clinical Sudoku or table of discriminating clues. This article uses the term 'tools' as a generic expression to signify 'items in a toolbox'. It includes all kinds of resources (techniques, strategies, models) that were gathered to help clinical teachers with the teaching of clinical reasoning.

Convergent Validity of a Novel Clinical Reasoning Tool in Clerkship Medical Students: Pilot Study

Medical student educators have limited tools for standardized clinical reasoning assessment. The clinical reasoning task (CRT) checklist has been shown to identify specific tasks in the diagnostic process among residents and faculty. Authors assessed a novel student think aloud protocol strategy, the CRT, compared with the validated clinical data interpretation (CDI) test in six third-year medical students. The CRT was scored by two independent reviewers (kappa = 0.88). CRT and CDI scores were strongly positively correlated (r = 0.768, p = 0.074, df = 4). CRT provides both a global assessment of clinical reasoning and specific clinical reasoning deficits.

Clinical reasoning - an approach for decision-making in education and training for biomedical scientists

Aim: Explicitly addressing clinical reasoning (CR) is seen as a promising opportunity in the teaching of the biomedical sciences to enable students to acquire the skills to meet the challenges posed by ever more complex health care processes. The quality of diagnostic decisions plays an essential role here. Our aim is to examine if biomedical scientists recognize the practical relevance of CR and are able to apply it as a reflective framework for their professional practice. Method: In two different educational settings, biomedical science students were asked to look closely at CR in the context of the degree program and to indentify the different forms of reasoning used in their internships and professional practice. The written descriptions were analyzed for content and discussed in the seminars. Results: In both scenarios, the analyses of the students' descriptions and discussions showed that examining the different forms of CR helped to raise conscious awareness of thought and decision-making processes, encouraging students to think critically about them and to articulate insights about them, as well as recognize the importance of different reasoning strategies when making specific medical decisions. Conclusion: CR for biomedical scientists could help make decision-making processes visible for other occupational groups and thus advantageously integrate specific professional expertise into health care. Over the long term, an interdisciplinary focus on CR could foster and promote the development of a shared discourse and interprofessional collaboration.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion

The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forward. A well-written discussion should provide clear "statements of the main findings", "possible explanations and implications", "strengths and weaknesses of the study and other studies", "unanswered questions", and "suggestions for future research". The authors also need to clarify the external validity of the findings and show how the findings can be generalized. In this review, we focus on the function, content, and organization of the "discussion section" of a hypothesis-testing paper. Beyond providing the most important principles and common strategies for organizing the discussion section, we also discuss metadiscourse, scientific explanation (reasoning and contextualization), and models of scientific explanation.

Student experiences of learning clinical reasoning

BACKGROUND

Students find learning clinical reasoning skills challenging. Viewing how students learn clinical reasoning skills from a sociocultural perspective, however, may allow helpful and unhelpful descriptions to be interpreted as experiences that promote or inhibit their participation in and opportunities to co-construct their clinical reasoning skills.

METHODS

This interview study was conducted with 25 Year-6 undergraduate medical students. Interview data were first analysed thematically, and then the findings were analysed with the concepts of participation and co-construction.

RESULTS

The themes identified were: (1) practising with undifferentiated patients; (2) teachers who were willing to make thinking explicit; (3) a lack of independence and involvement; (4) a lack of communication and feedback; and (5) confusion from different sources of information. When further analysed, the themes could be represented as points along a continuum of participating in, and co-constructing, clinical reasoning skills.

DISCUSSION

Clinical educators will find the themes identified from students' experiences learning in a workplace environment helpful for understanding why some students may struggle to develop their clinical reasoning skills. An interpretation of findings from a sociocultural perspective offers a different approach for understanding students' difficulties when learning clinical reasoning: one where students are able to increase their participation in, and co-construction of, clinical reasoning in the context of working collaboratively to provide patient care. Students find learning clinical reasoning skills challenging.

Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Clerkship: A Clinical Reasoning Curriculum for Third-Year Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

Clinical reasoning is the complex cognitive process that drives the diagnosis of disease and treatment of patients. There is a national call for medical educators to develop clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education. To address this need, we developed a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum for internal medicine clerkship students.

METHODS

We delivered six 1-hour sessions to approximately 40 students over the 15-week combined medicine-surgery clerkship at Penn State College of Medicine. We developed the content using previous work in clinical reasoning, including the American College of Physicians' Teaching Medicine Series book Teaching Clinical Reasoning. Students applied a clinical reasoning diagnostic framework to written cases during each workshop. Each session followed a scaffold approach and built upon previously learned clinical reasoning skills. We administered a pre- and postsurvey to assess students' baseline knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and perceived confidence in performing clinical reasoning skills. Students also provided open-ended responses regarding the effectiveness of the curriculum.

RESULTS

The curriculum was well received by students and led to increased perceived knowledge of clinical reasoning concepts and increased confidence in applying clinical reasoning skills. Students commented on the usefulness of practicing clinical reasoning in a controlled environment while utilizing a framework that could be deliberately applied to patient care.

DISCUSSION

The longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum was effective in reinforcing key concepts of clinical reasoning and allowed for deliberate practice in a controlled environment. The curriculum is generalizable to students in both the preclinical and clinical years.

The Assessment of Reasoning Tool (ART): structuring the conversation between teachers and learners

Background

Excellence in clinical reasoning is one of the most important outcomes of medical education programs, but assessing learners’ reasoning to inform corrective feedback is challenging and unstandardized.

Methods

The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine formed a multi-specialty team of medical educators to develop the Assessment of Reasoning Tool (ART). This paper describes the tool development process. The tool was designed to facilitate clinical teachers’ assessment of learners’ oral presentation for competence in clinical reasoning and facilitate formative feedback. Reasoning frameworks (e.g. script theory), contemporary practice goals (e.g. high-value care [HVC]) and proposed error reduction strategies (e.g. metacognition) were used to guide the development of the tool.

Results

The ART is a behaviorally anchored, three-point scale assessing five domains of reasoning: (1) hypothesis-directed data gathering, (2) articulation of a problem representation, (3) formulation of a prioritized differential diagnosis, (4) diagnostic testing aligned with HVC principles and (5) metacognition. Instructional videos were created for faculty development for each domain, guided by principles of multimedia learning.

Conclusions

The ART is a theory-informed assessment tool that allows teachers to assess clinical reasoning and structure feedback conversations.

Assessment in clinical education: A comparison between a generic instrument and a course-specific criterion-based instrument

Assessment of students’ clinical performance and reasoning raises critical questions of whether learning outcomes have been reached and whether the aims of a course/education programme have been fulfilled. The aim of this study was to compare two assessment instruments in clinical education. A cross-sectional, comparative design was used. Nursing students and supervisors from five universities and university colleges in Sweden were included in the study. A sample of 435 students was used. Data were collected with study-specific questionnaires targeted for the two groups, nursing students and supervisors, and were analysed using cross-tabulation, chi-square with WinSTAT. Students perceived supervisors using the instrument Assessment of Clinical Education (AClEd) to be more aware of what to assess and they experienced more support from the ‘AClEd supervisors’ as compared to the supervisors using the second instrument, the Assessment form for Clinical education (AssCe). Furthermore, the AClEd assessment was perceived to be fairer compared to the AssCe assessment. The criterion-referenced assessment instrument AClEd was perceived, by both nursing students and supervisors, to give a clearer view of the learning outcome and the possibility of a fair and comprehensive assessment.