Using the student case presentation to enhance diagnostic reasoning

Teaching Medical Students in the Rural Setting Long Term: Physicians' Attitudes and Perceptions

OBJECTIVES

The University of Alabama School of Medicine Tuscaloosa Regional Campus conducted a 2-month block in rural family practice, but committed to expanding to an 8-month longitudinal rural curriculum. We wanted to explore how rural physicians feel about teaching students in a prolonged rural preceptorship.

METHODS

We brainstormed with colleagues, reviewed the literature, and conducted two focus groups supplemented by five interviews with rural physicians. The focus groups explored satisfaction and dissatisfaction in teaching, medical school and community support, evaluation of preceptors, and the sharing of information between students and preceptors. The analysis sought common themes among study participants and colleagues.

RESULTS

Twenty-one study participants included 19 family physicians, 15 in private practice. Eleven had taught medical students. Our key finding, combining four themes, was that a satisfactory context within which to teach medical students long term in rural sites depends on the optimization of the roles of preceptors, students, communities, and educational institutions. There were comments addressing each of these roles. This finding cannot be generalized beyond the study group because of the qualitative methodology using a convenience sample.

CONCLUSIONS

These physicians' concerns foment hypotheses about engaging rural physicians in their own unique local networks involving preceptors, students, community, and educational institutions to conduct satisfactory long-term medical education in rural sites. We recommend investigations to substantiate a prevalence among rural physicians of concern about the four roles and to describe various contexts in which these roles produce satisfactory long-term preceptorships, perhaps as best practices in different settings.

Deliberate teaching tools for clinical teaching encounters: A critical scoping review and thematic analysis to establish definitional clarity

PURPOSE AND METHOD

We conducted a scoping review of tools designed to add structure to clinical teaching, with a thematic analysis to establish definitional clarity.

RESULTS

Six thousand and forty nine citations were screened, 434 reviewed for eligibility, and 230 identified as meeting study inclusion criteria. Eighty-nine names and 51 definitions were identified. Based on a post facto thematic analysis, we propose that these tools be named "deliberate teaching tools" (DTTs) and defined as "frameworks that enable clinicians to have a purposeful and considered approach to teaching encounters by incorporating elements identified with good teaching practice." We identified 46 DTTs in the literature, with 38 (82.6%) originally described for the medical setting. Forty justification articles consisted of 16 feedback surveys, 13 controlled trials, seven pre-post intervention studies with no control group, and four observation studies. Current evidence of efficacy is not entirely conclusive, and many studies contain methodology flaws. Forty-nine clarification articles comprised 12 systematic reviews and 37 narrative reviews. The most number of DTTs described by any review was four. A common design theme was identified in approximately three-quarters of DTTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Applicability of DTTs to specific alternate settings should be considered in context, and appropriately designed justification studies are warranted to demonstrate efficacy.

Teaching and Assessing Clinical Reasoning Skills

Clinical reasoning is a core competency expected to be acquired by all clinicians. It is the ability to integrate and apply different types of knowledge, weigh evidence critically and reflect upon the process used to arrive at a diagnosis. Problems with clinical reasoning often occur because of inadequate knowledge, flaws in data gathering and improper approach to information processing. Some of the educational strategies which can be used to encourage acquisition of clinical reasoning skills are: exposure to a wide variety of clinical cases, activation of previous knowledge, development of illness scripts, sharing expert strategies to arrive at a diagnosis, forcing students to prioritize differential diagnoses; and encouraging reflection, metacognition, deliberate practice and availability of formative feedback. Assessment of clinical reasoning abilities should be done throughout the training course in diverse settings. Use of scenario based multiple choice questions, key feature test and script concordance test are some ways of theoretically assessing clinical reasoning ability. In the clinical setting, these skills can be tested in most forms of workplace based assessment. We recommend that clinical reasoning must be taught at all levels of medical training as it improves clinician performance and reduces cognitive errors.

Connecting Classroom, Clinic, and Context: Clinical Reasoning Strategies for Clinical Instructors and Academic Faculty

BACKGROUND

Clinical reasoning is an essential skill in pediatric physical therapist (PT) practice. As such, explicit instruction in clinical reasoning should be emphasized in PT education.

KEY POINTS

This article provides academic faculty and clinical instructors with an overview of strategies to develop and expand the clinical reasoning capacity of PT students within the scope of pediatric PT practice. Achieving a balance between deductive reasoning strategies that provide a framework for thinking and inductive reasoning strategies that emphasize patient factors and the context of the clinical situation is an important variable in educational pedagogy.

TEACHING IMPLICATIONS

Consideration should be given to implementing various teaching and learning approaches across the curriculum that reflect the developmental level of the student(s). Deductive strategies may be helpful early in the curriculum, whereas inductive strategies are often advantageous after patient interactions; however, exposure to both is necessary to fully develop the learner's clinical reasoning abilities.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

For more insights from the authors, see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at http://links.lww.com/PPT/A87.

Evaluating oral case presentations using a checklist: how do senior student-evaluators compare with faculty?

PURPOSE

Previous studies have shown student-evaluators to be reliable assessors of some clinical skills, but this model has not been studied for oral case presentations (OCPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of student-evaluators in assessing OCP by comparing them with faculty.

METHOD

In 2010, the authors developed a dichotomous checklist. They trained 30 fourth-year medical students (student-evaluators) to use it to assess 170 second-year medical students' OCPs in real time during a year-end objective structured clinical examination. Ten faculty physicians then scored videos of a random sample of these OCPs. After discarding items with poor faculty reliability, the authors assessed agreement between faculty and student-evaluators on 18 individual items, total scores, and pass/fail decisions.

RESULTS

The total score correlation between student-evaluators and faculty was 0.84 (P < .001) and was somewhat better than the faculty-faculty intraclass correlation (r = 0.71). Using a 70% pass/fail cutoff, faculty and student-evaluator agreement was 74% (Kappa = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72). Overall, student-evaluator scores were more lenient than faculty scores (72% versus 56% pass rates; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Senior student-evaluators were able to reliably assess second-year medical students' OCP skills. The results support the use of student-evaluators for peer assessment of OCPs in low-stakes settings, but evidence of leniency compared with faculty assessment suggests caution in using student-evaluators in high-stakes settings. Extending peer assessment to OCPs provides a practical approach for low-resource evaluation of this essential skill.