Diagnosing and Remediating Clinical Reasoning Difficulties: A Faculty Development Workshop

Minding the gap: towards a shared clinical reasoning lexicon across the pre-clerkship/clerkship transition

Teaching and learning of clinical reasoning are core principles of medical education. However, little guidance exists for faculty leaders to navigate curricular transitions between pre-clerkship and clerkship curricular phases. This study compares how educational leaders in these two phases understand clinical reasoning instruction. Previously reported cross-sectional surveys of pre-clerkship clinical skills course directors, and clerkship leaders were compared. Comparisons focused on perceived importance of a number of core clinical reasoning concepts, barriers to clinical reasoning instruction, level of familiarity across the undergraduate medical curriculum, and inclusion of clinical reasoning instruction in each area of the curriculum. Analyses were performed using the Mann Whitney U test. Both sets of leaders rated lack of curricular time as the largest barrier to teaching clinical reasoning. Clerkship leaders also noted a lack of faculty with skills to teach clinical reasoning concepts as a significant barrier (p < 0.02), while pre-clerkship leaders were more likely to perceive that these concepts were too advanced for their students (p < 0.001). Pre-clerkship leaders reported a higher level of familiarity with the clerkship curriculum than clerkship leaders reported of the pre-clerkship curriculum (p < 0.001). As faculty transition students from the pre-clerkship to the clerkship phase, a shared understanding of what is taught and when, accompanied by successful faculty development, may aid the development of longitudinal, milestone-based clinical reasoning instruction.

CRISP: An Inpatient Pediatric Curriculum for Family Medicine Residents Using Clinical Reasoning and Illness Scripts

Introduction

Clinical reasoning enables safe patient care and is an important competency in medical education but can be challenging to teach. Illness scripts facilitate clinical reasoning but have not been used to create pediatric curricula.

Methods

We created CRISP (Clinical Reasoning with Illness Scripts in Pediatrics), a curriculum comprising four 1-hour learning sessions that deliberately incorporated clinical reasoning concepts and illness scripts to organize how four common chief complaints were taught to family medicine residents on inpatient pediatric rotations. We performed a multisite curriculum evaluation project over 6 months with family medicine residents at four institutions to assess whether the use of clinical reasoning concepts to structure CRISP was feasible and acceptable for learners and instructors and whether the use of illness scripts increased knowledge of four common pediatric chief complaints.

Results

For all learning sessions, family medicine residents and pediatric hospitalists agreed that CRISP's format was preferable to traditional didactic lectures. Pre-/posttest scores showed statistically significant increases in family medicine resident knowledge (respiratory distress [n = 42]: pretest, 72%, posttest, 92%; abdominal pain [n = 44]: pretest, 82%, posttest, 96%; acute febrile limp [n = 44]: pretest, 68%, posttest, 81%; well-appearing febrile infant [n = 42]: pretest, 58%, posttest, 73%; ps < .05).

Discussion

By using clinical reasoning concepts and illness script comparison to structure a pediatric curriculum, CRISP represents a novel instructional approach that can be used by pediatric hospitalists to increase family medicine resident knowledge about diagnoses associated with common pediatric chief complaints.

Assessing clinical reasoning ability in fourth-year medical students via an integrative group history-taking with an individual reasoning activity

BACKGROUND

The most important factor in evaluating a physician's competence is strong clinical reasoning ability, leading to correct principal diagnoses. The process of clinical reasoning includes history taking, physical examinations, validating medical records, and determining a final diagnosis. In this study, we designed a teaching activity to evaluate the clinical reasoning competence of fourth-year medical students.

METHODS

We created five patient scenarios for our standardized patients, including hemoptysis, abdominal pain, fever, anemia, and chest pain. A group history-taking with individual reasoning principles was implemented to teach and evaluate students' abilities to take histories, document key information, and arrive at the most likely diagnosis. Residents were trained to act as teachers, and a post-study questionnaire was employed to evaluate the students' satisfaction with the training activity.

RESULTS

A total of 76 students, five teachers, and five standardized patients participated in this clinical reasoning training activity. The average history-taking score was 64%, the average key information number was 7, the average diagnosis number was 1.1, and the average correct diagnosis rate was 38%. Standardized patients presenting with abdominal pain (8.3%) and anemia (18.2%) had the lowest diagnosis rates. The scenario of anemia presented the most difficult challenge for students in history taking (3.5/5) and clinical reasoning (3.5/5). The abdominal pain scenario yielded even worse results (history taking: 2.9/5 and clinical reasoning 2.7/5). We found a correlation in the clinical reasoning process between the correct and incorrect most likely diagnosis groups (group history-taking score, p = 0.045; key information number, p = 0.009 and diagnosis number, p = 0.004). The post-study questionnaire results indicated significant satisfaction with the teaching program (4.7/5) and the quality of teacher feedback (4.9/5).

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that the clinical reasoning skills of fourth-year medical students benefited from this training course, and the lower correction of the most likely diagnosis rate found with abdominal pain, anemia, and fever might be due to a system-based teaching modules in fourth-year medical students; cross-system remedial reasoning auxiliary training is recommended for fourth-year medical students in the future.

A Systematic Approach to Working With Medical Learners in Difficulty: A Faculty Development Workshop

Introduction

For medical educators, applying a systematic approach to working with struggling learners (learners in difficulty) can improve faculty success and satisfaction with the remediation process. Use of the familiar SOAP diagnostic framework can ensure that faculty develop a thorough differential diagnosis and target their interventions to address underlying issues affecting learner success.

Methods

We developed a workshop to teach medical education faculty essential skills for supporting learners in difficulty. Teaching methods included didactic presentation, large-group discussion, and small-group work with role-plays. Over three 2-hour sessions, participants learned to assess a learner in difficulty, develop an initial remediation plan, and evaluate their learning system with the goal of improving support to learners in difficulty. Evaluation included pre- and postsession assessment of learner self-perceived confidence and skill with working with struggling learners, as well as brief postsession evaluation.

Results

Ninety-nine faculty participated in the Learners in Difficulty workshop over 7 years. Participants' overall rating of the workshop was 4.9 (1 = poor, 5 = outstanding). Pre- and postworkshop evaluation showed a statistically significant increase in perceived self-confidence to "Meet the needs of a struggling learner," from an average of 4.4 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale (mean Δ = 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.8; p < .001).

Discussion

This workshop provides a stepwise approach to working with learners in difficulty and assessing participants' educational systems to identify strengths and weaknesses. Evaluations indicated participants felt more confident in their ability to engage in this topic following completion of the workshop.

Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for educational resources supporting the practice and assessment of the complex processes of clinical reasoning in the inpatient setting along a continuum of physician experience levels.

METHODS

Using participatory design, we created a scenario-based simulation integrating diagnostic ambiguity, contextual factors, and rising patient acuity to increase complexity. Resources include an open-ended written exercise and think-aloud reflection protocol to elicit diagnostic and management reasoning and reflection on that reasoning. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the initial implementation evaluation results.

RESULTS

Twenty physicians from multiple training stages and specialties (interns, residents, attendings, family physicians, internists, surgeons) underwent the simulated scenario. Participants engaged in clinical reasoning processes consistent with the design, considering a total of 19 differential diagnoses. Ten participants provided the correct leading diagnosis, tension pneumothorax, with an additional eight providing pneumothorax and all participants offering relevant supporting evidence. There was also good evidence of management reasoning, with all participants either performing an intervention or calling for assistance and reflecting on management plans in the think-aloud. The scenario was a reasonable approximation of clinical practice, with a mean authenticity rating of 4.15 out of 5. Finally, the scenario presented adequate challenge, with interns and residents rating it as only slightly more challenging (means of 7.83 and 7.17, respectively) than attendings (mean of 6.63 out of 10).

DISCUSSION

Despite the challenges of scenario complexity, evaluation results indicate that this resource supports the observation and analysis of diagnostic and management reasoning of diverse specialties from interns through attendings.

Clinical Reasoning in the Primary Care Setting: Two Scenario-Based Simulations for Residents and Attendings

Introduction

We describe the development and implementation of tools medical educators or researchers can use for developing or analyzing residents' through attending physicians' clinical reasoning in an outpatient clinic setting. The resource includes two scenario-based simulations (i.e., diabetes, angina), implementation support materials, an open-ended postencounter form, and a think-aloud reflection protocol.

Method

We designed two scenarios with potential case ambiguity and contextual factors to add complexity for studying clinical reasoning. The scenarios are designed to be used prior to an open-ended written exercise and a think-aloud reflection to elicit reasoning and reflection. We report on their implementation in a research context but developed them to be used in both educational and research settings.

Results

Twelve physicians (five interns, three residents, and four attendings) considered between three and six differential diagnoses (M = 4.0) for the diabetes scenario and between three and nine differentials (M = 4.3) for angina. In think-aloud reflections, participants reconsidered their thinking between zero and 14 times (M = 3.5) for diabetes and zero and 11 times (M = 3.3) for angina. Cognitive load scores ranged from 4 to 8 (out of 10; M = 6.2) for diabetes and 5 to 8 (M = 6.6) for angina. Participants rated scenario authenticity between 4 and 5 (out of 5).

Discussion

The potential case content ambiguity, along with the contextual factors (e.g., patient suggesting alternative diagnoses), provides a complex environment in which to explore or teach clinical reasoning.