Theory-guided teaching: Implementation of a clinical reasoning curriculum in residents

Fostering clinical reasoning ability in preclinical students through an illness script worksheet approach in flipped learning: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

The consensus that clinical reasoning should be explicitly addressed throughout medical training is increasing; however, studies on specific teaching methods, particularly, for preclinical students, are lacking. This study investigated the effects of an illness script worksheet approach in flipped learning on the development of clinical reasoning abilities in preclinical students. It also explored whether the impact of this intervention differed depending on clinical reasoning ability after dividing the students into high and low groups based on their pre-diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI) scores.

METHODS

This study used a one-group pre-post test design and convenience sampling. Forty-two second-year medical students were invited to participate in this study. The course, "clinical reasoning method," was redesigned as an illness script worksheet approach in flipped learning. The course was an eight-week long program. The students met once or twice per week with a different professor each time and engaged with 15 clinical cases in small groups in one classroom. Each time, one professor facilitated seven groups in a single classroom. The effectiveness of the intervention was measured using DTI before and after the intervention. A learning experience survey was conducted with post-DTI assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-six students participated in the survey and their data were analyzed. The mean pre-DTI score was 170.4, and the mean post-DTI score was 185.2, indicating an 8.68% increase (p < .001). Significant differences were also found in both high and low groups between the pre- and post-DTI assessments. However, the low group improved much more than the high group and exhibited a significant increase in one of the DTI subscales as well. The overall average score on the learning experience survey was 3.11 out of 4.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that the intervention was an effective instructional method for the development of clinical reasoning in preclinical students and was more beneficial for students with a low level of clinical reasoning ability. This study demonstrated that the intervention can be a feasible and scalable method to effectively and efficiently train clinical reasoning in preclinical students in a classroom.

Using an experiential learning model to teach clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias: an evaluation of a first-year medical student curriculum

BACKGROUND

Most medical students entering clerkships have limited understanding of clinical reasoning concepts. The value of teaching theories of clinical reasoning and cognitive biases to first-year medical students is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the value of explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias to first-year medical students.

METHODS

Using Kolb's experiential learning model, we introduced dual process theory, script theory, and cognitive biases in teaching clinical reasoning to first-year medical students at an academic medical center in New York City between January and June 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, instruction was transitioned to a distance learning format in March 2020. The curriculum included a series of written clinical reasoning examinations with facilitated small group discussions. Written self-assessments prompted each student to reflect on the experience, draw conclusions about their clinical reasoning, and plan for future encounters involving clinical reasoning. We evaluated the value of the curriculum using mixed-methods to analyze faculty assessments, student self-assessment questionnaires, and an end-of-curriculum anonymous questionnaire eliciting student feedback.

RESULTS

Among 318 total examinations of 106 students, 254 (80%) had a complete problem representation, while 199 (63%) of problem representations were considered concise. The most common cognitive biases described by students in their clinical reasoning were anchoring bias, availability bias, and premature closure. Four major themes emerged as valuable outcomes of the CREs as identified by students: (1) synthesis of medical knowledge; (2) enhanced ability to generate differential diagnoses; (3) development of self-efficacy related to clinical reasoning; (4) raised awareness of personal cognitive biases.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive biases using an experiential learning model provides first-year medical students with valuable opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to clinical reasoning.

A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research

Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient's management plan. As the field's understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reasoning. To synthesize previous studies of therapeutic reasoning characteristics, methodological approaches, theoretical underpinnings, and results. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searching for English language articles with no date limits. Databases included MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Embase, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ERIC. Search terms captured therapeutic reasoning in health professions education research. Initial search yielded 5450 articles. The title and abstract screening yielded 180 articles. After full-text review, 87 studies were included in this review. Articles were excluded if they were outside health professions education, did not collect data on the process of therapeutic reasoning, were not empirical studies, or not focused on therapeutic reasoning. We analyzed the included articles according to scoping questions using qualitative content analysis. 87 articles dated from 1987 to 2019 were included. Several study designs were employed including think-aloud protocol, interview and written documentation. More than half of the articles analyzed the data using qualitative coding. Authors often utilized several middle-range theories to explain therapeutic reasoning processes. The hypothetico-deductive model was most frequently mentioned. The included articles rarely built off the results from previous studies. Six key result categories were found: identifying themes, characterizing and testing previous local theory, exploring factors, developing new local theory, testing tools, and testing hypothesis. Despite the cast body of therapeutic reasoning research, individual study results remain isolated from previous studies. Our future recommendations include synthesizing pre-existing models, developing novel methodologies, and investigating other aspects of therapeutic reasoning.

Clinical Reasoning Curricula in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aimed to explore and synthesize current literature to advance the understanding of how to design clinical reasoning (CR) curricula for students in health professions education.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage framework was applied. Peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and manual searches, resulting in the identification of 2932 studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles were included on CR in medical, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, midwifery, dentistry, and speech language therapy education. The results describe: features of CR curriculum design; CR theories, models, and frameworks that inform curricula; and teaching content, methods, and assessments that inform CR curricula.

CONCLUSIONS

Several CR theories, teaching, and assessment methods are integrated into CR curricula, reflecting the multidimensionality of CR among professions. Specific CR elements are addressed in several curricula; however, no all-encompassing CR curriculum design has been identified. These findings offer useful insights for educators into how CR can be taught and assessed, but they also suggest the need for further guidance on educational strategies and assessments while learners progress through an educational program.

The concept of errors in medical education: a scoping review

The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how errors are conceptualized in medical education contexts by examining different error perspectives and practices. This review used a scoping methodology with a systematic search strategy to identify relevant studies, written in English, and published before January 2021. Four medical education journals (Medical Education, Advances in Health Science Education, Medical Teacher, and Academic Medicine) and four clinical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Annals of Surgery, and British Medical Journal) were purposively selected. Data extraction was charted according to a data collection form. Of 1505 screened studies, 79 studies were included. Three overarching perspectives were identified: 'understanding errors') (n = 31), 'avoiding errors' (n = 25), 'learning from errors' (n = 23). Studies that aimed at'understanding errors' used qualitative methods (19/31, 61.3%) and took place in the clinical setting (19/31, 61.3%), whereas studies that aimed at 'avoiding errors' and 'learning from errors' used quantitative methods ('avoiding errors': 20/25, 80%, and 'learning from errors': 16/23, 69.6%, p = 0.007) and took place in pre-clinical (14/25, 56%) and simulated settings (10/23, 43.5%), respectively (p < 0.001). The three perspectives differed significantly in terms of inclusion of educational theory: 'Understanding errors' studies 16.1% (5/31),'avoiding errors' studies 48% (12/25), and 'learning from errors' studies 73.9% (17/23), p < 0.001. Errors in medical education and clinical practice are defined differently, which makes comparisons difficult. A uniform understanding is not necessarily a goal but improving transparency and clarity of how errors are currently conceptualized may improve our understanding of when, why, and how to use and learn from errors in the future.

Development of a Clinical Reasoning Documentation Assessment Tool for Resident and Fellow Admission Notes: a Shared Mental Model for Feedback

BACKGROUND

Residents and fellows receive little feedback on their clinical reasoning documentation. Barriers include lack of a shared mental model and variability in the reliability and validity of existing assessment tools. Of the existing tools, the IDEA assessment tool includes a robust assessment of clinical reasoning documentation focusing on four elements (interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of reasoning for lead and alternative diagnoses) but lacks descriptive anchors threatening its reliability.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to develop a valid and reliable assessment tool for clinical reasoning documentation building off the IDEA assessment tool.

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURES

The Revised-IDEA assessment tool was developed by four clinician educators through iterative review of admission notes written by medicine residents and fellows and subsequently piloted with additional faculty to ensure response process validity. A random sample of 252 notes from July 2014 to June 2017 written by 30 trainees across several chief complaints was rated. Three raters rated 20% of the notes to demonstrate internal structure validity. A quality cut-off score was determined using Hofstee standard setting.

KEY RESULTS

The Revised-IDEA assessment tool includes the same four domains as the IDEA assessment tool with more detailed descriptive prompts, new Likert scale anchors, and a score range of 0-10. Intraclass correlation was high for the notes rated by three raters, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.90). Scores ≥6 were determined to demonstrate high-quality clinical reasoning documentation. Only 53% of notes (134/252) were high-quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The Revised-IDEA assessment tool is reliable and easy to use for feedback on clinical reasoning documentation in resident and fellow admission notes with descriptive anchors that facilitate a shared mental model for feedback.

A clinical reasoning curriculum for medical students: an interim analysis

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic error is a critical patient safety issue that can be addressed in part through teaching clinical reasoning. Medical schools with clinical reasoning curricula tend to emphasize general reasoning concepts (e.g., differential diagnosis generation). Few published curricula go beyond teaching the steps in the diagnostic process to address how students should structure their knowledge to optimize diagnostic performance in future clinical encounters or to discuss elements outside of individual cognition that are essential to diagnosis.

METHODS

In 2016, the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine launched a clinical reasoning curriculum that simultaneously emphasizes reasoning concepts and intentional knowledge construction; the roles of patients, families, interprofessional colleagues; and communication in diagnosis. The curriculum features a longitudinal thread beginning in first year, with an immersive three week diagnostic reasoning (DR) course in the second year. Students evaluated the DR course. Additionally, we conducted an audit of the multiyear clinical reasoning curriculum using the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine-Macy Foundation interprofessional diagnostic education competencies.

RESULTS

Students rated DR highly (range 4.13-4.18/5 between 2018 and 2020) and reported high self-efficacy with applying clinical reasoning concepts and communicating reasoning to supervisors. A course audit demonstrated a disproportionate emphasis on individual (cognitive) competencies with inadequate attention to systems and team factors in diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our clinical reasoning curriculum led to high student self-efficacy. However, we stressed cognitive aspects of reasoning with limited instruction on teams and systems. Diagnosis education should expand beyond the cognitive- and physician-centric focus of most published reasoning courses.

Why is it so difficult to implement a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum? A multicenter interview study on the barriers perceived by European health professions educators

BACKGROUND

Effective clinical reasoning is a core competency of health professionals that is necessary to assure patients' safety. Unfortunately, adoption of longitudinal clinical reasoning curricula is still infrequent. This study explores the barriers that hinder the explicit teaching of clinical reasoning from a new international perspective.

METHODS

The context of this study was a European project whose aim is to develop a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum. We collected data in semi-structured interviews with responders from several European countries who represent various health professions and have different backgrounds, roles and experience. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the gathered data and constructed a coding frame using a combined deductive/inductive approach. The identified themes were validated by parallel coding and in group discussions among project members.

RESULTS

A total of 29 respondents from five European countries participated in the interviews; the majority of them represent medicine and nursing sciences. We grouped the identified barriers into eight general themes: Time, Culture, Motivation, Clinical Reasoning as a Concept, Teaching, Assessment, Infrastructure and Others. Subthemes included issues with discussing errors and providing feedback, awareness of clinical reasoning teaching methods, and tensions between the groups of professionals involved.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an in-depth analysis of the barriers that hinder the teaching of explicit clinical reasoning. The opinions are presented from the perspective of several European higher education institutions. The identified barriers are complex and should be treated holistically due to the many interconnections between the identified barriers. Progress in implementation is hampered by the presence of reciprocal causal chains that aggravate this situation. Further research could investigate the perceptual differences between health professions regarding the barriers to clinical reasoning. The collected insights on the complexity and diversity of these barriers will help when rolling out a long-term agenda for overcoming the factors that inhibit the implementation of clinical reasoning curricula.