Search

Background: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a crucial ability that can prevent errors in patient care. Despite its important role, CR is often not taught explicitly and, even when it is taught, typically not all aspects of this ability are addressed in health professions education. Recent research has shown the need for explicit teaching of CR for both students and teachers. To further develop the teaching and learning of CR we need to improve the understanding of students' and teachers' needs regarding content as well as teaching and assessment methods for a student and trainer CR curriculum., Methods: Parallel mixed-methods design that used web-surveys and semi-structured interviews to gather data from both students (n survey  = 100; n interviews  = 13) and teachers (n survey  = 112; n interviews  = 28). The interviews and surveys contained similar questions to allow for triangulation of the results. This study was conducted as part of the EU-funded project DID-ACT ( https://did-act.eu )., Results: Both the surveys and interview data emphasized the need for content in a clinical reasoning (CR) curriculum such as "gathering, interpreting and synthesizing patient information", "generating differential diagnoses", "developing a diagnostic and a treatment plan" and "collaborative and interprofessional aspects of CR". There was high agreement that case-based learning and simulations are most useful for teaching CR. Clinical and oral examinations were favored for the assessment of CR. The preferred format for a train-the-trainer (TTT)-course was blended learning. There was also some agreement between the survey and interview participants regarding contents of a TTT-course (e.g. teaching and assessment methods for CR). The interviewees placed special importance on interprofessional aspects also for the TTT-course., Conclusions: We found some consensus on needed content, teaching and assessment methods for a student and TTT-course in CR. Future research could investigate the effects of CR curricula on desired outcomes, such as patient care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are a suitable method for students to train their clinical reasoning abilities. We describe a process of developing a blueprint for a diverse and realistic VP collection (prior to VP creation) that facilitates deliberate practice of clinical reasoning and meets educational requirements of medical schools., Methods: An international and interdisciplinary partnership of five European countries developed a blueprint for a collection of 200 VPs in four steps: (1) Defining the criteria (e.g., key symptoms, age, sex) and categorizing them into disease-, patient-, encounter- and learner-related, (2) Identifying data sources for assessing the representativeness of the collection, (3) Populating the blueprint, and (4) Refining and reaching consensus., Results: The blueprint is publicly available and covers 29 key symptoms and 176 final diagnoses including the most prevalent medical conditions in Europe. Moreover, our analyses showed that the blueprint appears to be representative of the European population., Conclusions: The development of the blueprint required a stepwise approach, which can be replicated for the creation of other VP or case collections. We consider the blueprint an appropriate starting point for the actual creation of the VPs, but constant updating and refining is needed.

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Clinical reasoning entails the application of knowledge and skills to collect and integrate information, typically with the goal of arriving at a diagnosis and management plan based on the patient's unique circumstances and preferences. Evidence-informed, structured, and explicit teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning in educational programs of medical and other health professions remain unmet needs. We herein summarize recommendations for clinical reasoning learning objectives (LOs), as derived from a consensus approach among European and US researchers and health professions educators. A four-step consensus approach was followed: (1) identification of a convenience sample of the most relevant and applied national LO catalogues for health professions educational programs (N = 9) from European and US countries, (2) extraction of LOs related to clinical reasoning and translation into English, (3) mapping of LOs into predefined categories developed within the Erasmus+ Developing, implementing, and disseminating an adaptive clinical reasoning curriculum for healthcare students and educators (DID-ACT) consortium, and (4) synthesis of analysis findings into recommendations for how LOs related to clinical reasoning could be presented and incorporated in LO catalogues, upon consensus. Three distinct recommendations were formulated: (1) make clinical reasoning explicit, (2) emphasize interprofessional and collaboration aspects of clinical reasoning, and (3) include aspects of teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning. In addition, the consortium understood that implementation of bilingual catalogues with English as a common language might contribute to lower heterogeneity regarding amount, structure, and level of granularity of clinical reasoning LOs across countries. These recommendations will hopefully motivate and guide initiatives towards the implementation of LOs related to clinical reasoning in existing and future LO catalogues.

Background: Clinical reasoning is a key ability essential for practising health professionals. However, little is known about the current global adoption of clinical reasoning teaching and assessment. Purpose: We aimed to provide insights into how clinical reasoning is deliberately taught and assessed in curricula worldwide and to identify needs and perceived barriers for teaching clinical reasoning to students and educators. Methods: A questionnaire was devised by an international expert group and distributed in a large international medical education community. Data were collected in 2018 and analysed using descriptive statistics. We identified themes in free-text responses using content analysis. Results: Three hundred and thirteen responses from 76 countries were collected. Most respondents were from Europe (34%). While the presence of a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum was only reported by 28%, 85% stated that such a curriculum was needed. The lack of awareness of the need to explicitly teach clinical reasoning was the most commonly identified barrier. For assessment, the greatest need identified was for more workplace-based assessment. Conclusions: Global respondents indicate the need to implement explicit longitudinal clinical reasoning curricula. Our findings suggest that efforts should be put into improving faculty development, including evidence-based materials on how to teach and assess clinical reasoning.