Search

Management reasoning is a critical yet understudied phenomenon in clinical practice and medical education. The authors sought to empirically identify key features of management reasoning and construct a model describing the management reasoning process.In November 2020, 4 investigators each reviewed 10 video clips of simulated outpatient physician-patient encounters and used a coding form to document key features and insights related to management reasoning. The team used a constant comparative approach to distill 120 pages of raw observations into an 18-page list of management tasks, processes, and insights. The team then had a series of discussions to iteratively refine these findings into a parsimonious model of management reasoning.The investigators empirically identified 12 distinct features of management reasoning: contrasting and selection among multiple solutions; prioritization of patient, clinician, and system preferences and constraints; communication and shared decision making; ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the management plan; dynamic interplay among people, systems, and competing priorities; illness-specific knowledge; process knowledge; management scripts; clinician roles as patient teacher and salesperson; clinician-patient relationship; prognostication; and organization of the clinical encounter (sequencing and time management). Management scripts seemed to play a prominent and critical role. The model of management reasoning comprised 4 steps: instantiation of a management script, identifying (multiple) options and beginning to teach the patient, shared decision making, and ongoing monitoring and adjustment. This model also conceives 2 overarching features: that management reasoning is personalized to the patient and that it occurs between individuals rather than exclusively within the clinician's mind.Management scripts constitute a key feature of management reasoning, along with teaching patients about viable options, shared decision making, ongoing monitoring and adjustment, and personalization. Management reasoning seems to be constructed and negotiated between individuals rather than exclusively within the clinician.

IntroductionParents and guardians of infants and young children with differences of sex development (DSD) often face numerous health and social decisions about their child’s condition. While proxy health decisions can be stressful in any circumstance, they are further exacerbated in this clinical context by significant variations in clinical presentation, parental lack of knowledge about DSD, irreversibility of some options (e.g., gonadectomy), a paucity of research available about long-term outcomes, and anticipated decisional regret. This study aimed to engage clinicians, parents, and an adult living with DSD to collaboratively co-design a suite of patient decision aids (PDAs) to respond to the decisional needs of parents and guardians of infants and young children diagnosed with DSD.MethodsWe used a systematic co-design process guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The five steps were: literature selection, establish the team, decisional needs assessment, create the PDAs, and alpha testing.ResultsOur team of health professionals, parents, adult living with DSD and PDA experts, co-designed four PDAs to support parents/guardians of infants or young children diagnosed with DSD. These PDAs addressed four priority decisions identified through our decisional needs assessment: genetic testing, gender of rearing, genital surgery and gonadal surgery. All four PDAs include information for parents about DSD, the options, reasons to choose or avoid each option, and opportunities for parents/guardians to rate the importance of features of each option to clarify their values for these features. Qualitative feedback was positive from our team and when alpha tested with an interprofessional DSD speciality team in a single center.ConclusionsThese PDAs are clinical tools designed to support parents/guardians to be involved in making informed DSD decisions; next steps are to determine parents’ decisional outcomes. While these tools are specific to DSD, the process through which they were co-designed is transferable to co-design of PDAs in other pediatric populations.

INTRODUCTION Uncertainty is integral to clinical practice and clinical reasoning but has proven difficult to study and model. Little is known about how clinicians manage uncertainty. According to evidence-based medicine theory, clinicians should utilise new information to reduce uncertainty until reaching action thresholds for further information gathering or treatment. We examined the impact of experience and task framing on uncertainty thresholds and the extent to which these thresholds guided clinical decisions. Finally, we sought to determine the impact of framing by having participants provide threshold responses as a range or as specific numbers. METHODS One hundred sixty-eight fourth-year medical students, 93 residents and 72 faculty were presented a case of viral pneumonia with a suspected superimposed bacterial infection. Participants identified their testing and treatment thresholds with either a specific number or an inter-threshold range of probabilities that would compel them to test further. Afterwards, they were told the patient had a 20% pre-test probability of a superimposed infection and asked whether they would treat the patient with antibiotics, order additional testing or neither. Responses were compared with their previously stated threshold values to assess decision-making consistency. RESULTS Testing thresholds were 15.8%, 20.6% and 25.8%, treatment thresholds were 78.5%, 71.6% and 73.4% and threshold spans (difference between testing and treatment thresholds) were 62.7, 51 and 47.6 for students, residents and faculty, respectively. Sixty-four percent of respondents made judgements consistent with their thresholds, 28% escalated their decision (doing more than their thresholds predicted) and 7.6% de-escalated their decision (doing less than their thresholds predicted). Framing had an impact on both faculty and resident decisions and a larger impact on students. DISCUSSION These findings help us understand how clinical reasoning and threshold determinations vary with clinical experience. As uncertainty can lead to unnecessary testing and cognitive discomfort, examining decision thresholds helps us ascertain how diagnostic and treatment decisions are made.

There is an urgent need to capture the outcomes of the ongoing global implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME). However, the measurement of downstream outcomes following educational innovations, such as CBME is fraught with challenges stemming from the complexities of medical training, the breadth and variability of inputs, and the difficulties attributing outcomes to specific educational elements. In this article, we present a logic model for CBME to conceptualize an impact pathway relating to CBME and facilitate outcomes evaluation. We further identify six strategies to mitigate the challenges of outcomes measurement: (1) clearly identify the outcome of interest, (2) distinguish between outputs and outcomes, (3) carefully consider attribution versus contribution, (4) connect outcomes to the fidelity and integrity of implementation, (5) pay attention to unanticipated outcomes, and (6) embrace methodological pluralism. Embracing these challenges, we argue that careful and thoughtful evaluation strategies will move us forward in answering the all-important question: Are the desired outcomes of CBME being achieved?

Medical education research focused on patient-centered outcomes holds the promise of improved decision-making by medical educators. In 2001, Prystowsky and Bordage demonstrated that patient-centered outcomes were evaluated in fewer than one percent of studies published in a survey of major medical education journals. Though many have called for increased inclusion of patient-centered outcomes in medical education literature, it remains uncertain to what degree this need has been addressed systematically.Using the same data sources as in the original report (Academic Medicine, Medical Education, and Teaching and Learning in Medicine), we sought to replicate Prystowsky and Bordage's study. We extracted data from original empirical research reports from these three journal sources for the years 2014-2016. We selected 652 articles that met the inclusion criteria for further analysis.Study participants were largely trainees (64% of studies) or faculty (25% of studies). Only 2% of studies included patients as active or passive participants. Study outcomes reported were satisfaction (40% of studies), performance (39%), professionalism (20%), and cost (1%).These results do not differ significantly from the original 2001 study. The medical education literature as represented in these three prominent journals has made little progress in placing a greater focus on patient-centered outcomes.

PurposeInternationally, health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are often developed to promote engagement in educational scholarship, yet little is known about how HPESUs change over time or what factors support their longevity. In hopes of helping HPESUs thrive, this study explored factors that shaped the evolution of 8 HPESUs over the past 14 years.MethodThis study involved retrospective case-study analysis of the 8 American, Canadian, and Dutch HPESUs profiled in a 2004 publication. First, the research team summarized key elements of HPESUs from the 2004 articles, then conducted semistructured interviews with the current unit directors. In the first set of questions, directors were asked to reflect on how the unit had changed over time, what successes the unit enjoyed, what enabled these successes, what challenges the unit encountered, and how these challenges were managed. In the second set of questions, questions were tailored to each unit, following up on unique elements from the original article. The team used Braun and Clarke's 6-phase approach to thematic analysis to identify, analyze, and report themes.ResultsThe histories of the units varied widely-some had grown by following their original mandates, some had significant mission shifts, and others had nearly disappeared. Current HPESU directors identified 3 key factors that shaped their HPESU's longitudinal development: the people working within and overseeing the HPESU (the need for a critical mass of scholars, a pipeline for developing scholars, and effective leadership), institutional structures (issues of centralization, unit priorities, and clear messaging), and funding (the need for multiple funding sources).ConclusionsStudy findings offer insights that may help current HPESU directors to strategically plan for their unit's continued development. Tactically harnessing the factors identified could help directors ensure their HPESU's growth and contend with the challenges that threaten the unit's success.

Introduction Management reasoning is distinct from diagnostic reasoning and remains incompletely understood. The authors sought to empirically investigate the concept of management scripts. Methods In November 2020, 4 investigators each reviewed 10 video clips of simulated outpatient physician-patient encounters, and used a coding form to document observations about management reasoning. The team used constant comparative analysis to integrate empirically-grounded insights with theories related to cognitive scripts and Type 1/Type 2 thinking. Results Management scripts are precompiled conceptual knowledge structures that represent and connect management options and clinician tasks in a temporal or logical sequence. Management scripts appear to differ substantially from illness scripts. Management scripts varied in quality (in content, sequence, flexibility, and fluency) and generality. The authors empirically identified six key features (components) of management scripts: the problem (diagnosis); management options; preferences, values, and constraints; education needs; interactions; and encounter flow. The authors propose a heuristic framework describing script activation, selection, instantiation with case-specific details, and application to guide development of the management plan. They further propose that management reasoning reflects iterative, back-and-forth involvement of both Type 1 (non-analytic, effortless) and Type 2 (analytic, effortful) thinking. Type 1 thinking likely influences initial script activation, selection, and initial instantiation. Type 2 increasingly influences subsequent script revisions, as activation, selection, and instantiation become more deliberate (effortful) and more hypothetical (involving mental simulation). Discussion Management scripts constitute a key feature of management reasoning, and could represent a new target for training in clinical reasoning (distinct from illness scripts).

Background The master adaptive learner (MAL) uses self-regulated learning skills to develop adaptive, efficient, and accurate skills in practice. Given rapid changes in healthcare, it is essential that medical students develop into MALs. There is a need for an instrument that can capture MAL behaviors and characteristics. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument for measuring the MAL process in medical students and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods As part of curriculum evaluation, 818 students completed previously developed instruments with validity evidence including the Self-Regulated Learning Perception Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Goal Orientation Scale, and Jefferson Scale of Physician Lifelong Learning. The authors performed exploratory factor analysis to examine underlying relationships between items. Items with high factor loadings were retained. Cronbach’s alpha was computed. In parallel, the multi-institutional research team rated the same items to provide content validity evidence of the items to MAL model. Results The original 67 items were reduced to 28 items loading onto four factors: Planning, Learning, Resilience, and Motivation. Each subscale included the following number of items and Cronbach’s alpha: Planning (10 items, alpha = 0.88), Learning (6 items, alpha = 0.81), Resilience (6 items, alpha = 0.89), and Motivation (6 items, alpha = 0.81). The findings from the factor analyses aligned with the research team ratings of linkage to the components of MAL. Conclusion These findings serve as a starting point for future work measuring master adaptive learning to identify and support learners. To fully measure the MAL construct, additional items may need to be developed.

Background Despite efforts to increase the overall diversity of the medical student body, some medical specialties have a less diverse applicant pool based on both gender and race than would be expected based on medical graduate demographics. Objectives To identify whether women and Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) medical students have baseline differences in their career interests or if their career plans change more during medical school when compared to men and non-URIM students. Methods Secondary data analyses of all medical students who applied through ERAS from 2005–2010 was conducted. Binary logistic regression models with the response being a planned career in one of four medical specialties (internal medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN, and general surgery/surgical specialties) at medical school entry and graduation. Regression models included demographics, student attitudes, debt, academic metrics, and medical school experiences. Results Comparatively, women were less likely to be interested in internal medicine and surgery and more interested in pediatrics and OB/GYN at matriculation. URiM students expressed more interest in OB/GYN and surgery when starting medical school. At graduation, women were less likely to plan for internal medicine and surgery and were more interested in pursuing OB/GYN and pediatrics. URiM students were more likely to plan for a career in internal medicine and less likely to choose pediatrics. Conclusions From matriculation to graduation, women have relatively stable preferences regarding planned medical specialties. In contrast, URiM students’ specialty plans shifted over time among the four specialties, with variation in preferences occurring between matriculation and graduation.

The clinical learning environment (CLE) encompasses the learner's personal characteristics and experiences, social relationships, organizational culture, and the institution's physical and virtual infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all 4 of these parts of the CLE have undergone a massive and rapid disruption. Personal and social communications have been limited to virtual interactions or shifted to unfamiliar clinical spaces because of redeployment. Rapid changes to the organizational culture required prompt adaptations from learners and educators in their complex organizational systems yet caused increased confusion and anxiety among them. A traditional reliance on a physical infrastructure for classical educational practices in the CLE was challenged when all institutions had to undergo a major transition to a virtual learning environment. However, disruptions spurred exciting innovations in the CLE. An entire cohort of physicians and learners underwent swift adjustments in their personal and professional development and identity as they rose to meet the clinical and educational challenges they faced due to COVID-19. Social networks and collaborations were expanded beyond traditional institutional walls and previously held international boundaries within multiple specialties. Specific aspects of the organizational and educational culture, including epidemiology, public health, and medical ethics, were brought to the forefront in health professions education, while the physical learning environment underwent a rapid transition to a virtual learning space. As health professions education continues in the era of COVID-19 and into a new era, educators must take advantage of these dynamic systems to identify additional gaps and implement meaningful change. In this article, health professions educators and learners from multiple institutions and specialties discuss the gaps and weaknesses exposed, opportunities revealed, and strategies developed for optimizing the CLE in the post-COVID-19 world.

Introduction Education scholarship requires peer reviewers. For novice scholars, reviewing is an important developmental activity that cultivates deeper participation in the scholarship community. Yet getting started with reviewing is challenging for those not involved with the educational scholarship community. Beyond scientific expertise, reviewers must have a mentoring mindset, skills in providing constructive feedback, and knowledge of common ethical challenges associated with producing and evaluating scholarship. Methods Our workshop introduced novice health professions educators to peer reviewing. It included four stimulus presentations about the peer reviewer's mindset and skills, followed by reinforcement activities. The workshop could be adapted to variously sized groups. An 8:1 ratio of participants to facilitators was ideal for activities. Topics covered included considerations before accepting an invitation, the review process, the good citizen approach to reviewing, and reviewer ethics. The session concluded with suggestions for continued development of peer reviewer competencies. The workshop was evaluated using a custom survey. Results Throughout 2019 and early 2020, 58 health professions educators and trainees participated in the workshop across varied venues. Evaluations were obtained from 33 participants (57%). Nearly all rated the workshop as high quality and valuable to peer reviewer preparation. Most (26 of 33; 75%) gained confidence about their qualifications to serve as reviewers. Eighty percent (28 of 33) believed they could recognize ethical dilemmas. Discussion This workshop provided a springboard for peer reviewing health professions education scholarship. Participants generally praised the experience for introducing them to the world of peer review and preparing them for it.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is considered to be at the core of health practice. Here, we report on the diversity and inferred meanings of the terms used to refer to clinical reasoning and consider implications for teaching and assessment. Methods: In the context of a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review of 625 papers drawn from 18 health professions, we identified 110 terms for clinical reasoning. We focus on iterative categorization of these terms across three phases of coding and considerations for how terminology influences educational practices. Results: Following iterative coding with 5 team members, consensus was possible for 74, majority coding was possible for 16, and full team disagreement existed for 20 terms. Categories of terms included: purpose/goal of reasoning, outcome of reasoning, reasoning performance, reasoning processes, reasoning skills, and context of reasoning. Discussion: Findings suggest that terms used in reference to clinical reasoning are non-synonymous, not uniformly understood, and the level of agreement differed across terms. If the language we use to describe, to teach, or to assess clinical reasoning is not similarly understood across clinical teachers, program directors, and learners, this could lead to confusion regarding what the educational or assessment targets are for "clinical reasoning."

Purpose As medical schools adapt their curricula to prepare future physicians for the opioid crisis and for treating patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), educators should refer to courses described in the literature. This scoping review aimed to (1) provide a comprehensive evaluation and summation of peer-reviewed literature reporting on SUD education in medical schools globally and (2) appraise the research quality and educational outcomes reported in SUD education studies in medical schools. Method The authors searched 6 databases (3 Ovid MEDLINE databases, Embase, ERIC, and Web of Science) from inception through May 25, 2018. Original English-language research studies focusing on medical students and describing SUD education in medical schools were included. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess included studies. Results Of 3,178 articles identified, 43 met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in 9 countries. Most reported on educational interventions for tobacco (n = 20; 47%); others reported on interventions for SUDs broadly (n = 15; 35%), alcohol (n = 8; 19%), and opioids (n = 1; 2%). The mean MERSQI score was 12.27 (standard deviation 2.30). Four studies (9%) reported on educational outcomes at the level of behaviors or patient or health care outcomes. The majority (n = 39; 91%) reported significant benefits. Conclusions Educational interventions relating to SUDs were effective in improving medical students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Educators should develop courses that achieve higher-level educational outcomes, increase education on opioid use disorders, and focus on the greatest public health concerns.

An evidence-based approach to assessment is critical for ensuring the development of clinical reasoning (CR) competence. The wide array of CR assessment methods creates challenges for selecting assessments fit for the purpose; thus, a synthesis of the current evidence is needed to guide practice. A scoping review was performed to explore the existing menu of CR assessments.Multiple databases were searched from their inception to 2016 following PRISMA guidelines. Articles of all study design types were included if they studied a CR assessment method. The articles were sorted by assessment methods and reviewed by pairs of authors. Extracted data were used to construct descriptive appendixes, summarizing each method, including common stimuli, response formats, scoring, typical uses, validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages.A total of 377 articles were included in the final synthesis. The articles broadly fell into three categories: non-workplace-based assessments (e.g., multiple-choice questions, extended matching questions, key feature examinations, script concordance tests); assessments in simulated clinical environments (objective structured clinical examinations and technology-enhanced simulation); and workplace-based assessments (e.g., direct observations, global assessments, oral case presentations, written notes). Validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages differed by method.There are numerous assessment methods that align with different components of the complex construct of CR. Ensuring competency requires the development of programs of assessment that address all components of CR. Such programs are ideally constructed of complementary assessment methods to account for each method's validity and feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages.

As the global transformation of postgraduate medical training continues, there are persistent calls for program evaluation efforts to understand the impact and outcomes of competency-based medical education (CBME) implementation. The measurement of a complex educational intervention such as CBME is challenging because of the multifaceted nature of activities and outcomes. What is needed, therefore, is an organizational taxonomy to both conceptualize and categorize multiple outcomes. In this manuscript we propose a taxonomy that builds on preceding works to organize CBME outcomes across three domains: focus (educational, clinical), level (micro, meso, macro), and timeline (training, transition to practice, practice). We also provide examples of how to conceptualize outcomes of educational interventions across medical specialties using this taxonomy. By proposing a shared language for outcomes of CBME, we hope that this taxonomy will help organize ongoing evaluation work and catalyze those seeking to engage in the evaluation effort to help understand the impact and outcomes of CBME.

Competency-based medical education has been advocated as the future of medical education for nearly a half-century. Inherent to this is the promise that advancement and transitions in training would be defined by readiness to practice rather than by time. Of the logistical problems facing competency-based, time-variable (CBTV) training, enacting time variability may be the largest hurdle to clear. Although it is true that an 'all or nothing' approach to CBTV training would require massive overhauls of both medical education and health care systems, the authors propose that training institutions should gradually evolve within their current environments to incrementally move toward the best version of CBTV training for learners, supervisors, and patients. In support of this evolution, the authors seek to demonstrate the feasibility of advancing toward the goal of realistic CBTV training by detailing examples of successful CBTV training and describing key features of initial steps toward CBTV training implementation.

Health care revolves around trust. Patients are often in a position that gives them no other choice than to trust the people taking care of them. Educational programs thus have the responsibility to develop physicians who can be trusted to deliver safe and effective care, ultimately making a final decision to entrust trainees to graduate to unsupervised practice. Such entrustment decisions deserve to be scrutinized for their validity. This end-of-training entrustment decision is arguably the most important one, although earlier entrustment decisions, for smaller units of professional practice, should also be scrutinized for their validity. Validity of entrustment decisions implies a defensible argument that can be analyzed in components that together support the decision. According to Kane, building a validity argument is a process designed to support inferences of scoring, generalization across observations, extrapolation to new instances, and implications of the decision. A lack of validity can be caused by inadequate evidence in terms of, according to Messick, content, response process, internal structure (coherence) and relationship to other variables, and in misinterpreted consequences. These two leading frameworks (Kane and Messick) in educational and psychological testing can be well applied to summative entrustment decision-making. The authors elaborate the types of questions that need to be answered to arrive at defensible, well-argued summative decisions regarding performance to provide a grounding for high-quality safe patient care.

The learning environment (LE) provides a context for many educational phenomena, of which wellness and burnout are particularly important. The LE can be thought of as consisting of a psychosocial dimension of personal, social, and organizational factors and a sociomaterial dimension that consists of spatial and technical factors. The interplay between elements of the LE and wellness of the participants is complex and only partially understood, requiring further research. Using this multidimensional model to describe and to plan to deliberately modify the learning environment can foster more rigorous and meaningful research evidence about the interaction of wellness and the LE. This article highlights four key considerations that scholars of wellness should consider when exploring the impact of the LE or designing interventions to modify the environment. These include 1) a thoughtful definition and theoretical conceptualization of the LE, 2) clarity about the study variables that are essential to the study question(s), 3) thoughtful and appropriate measurement of those variables, and 4) a study design that balances quality with feasibility. We provide a practical illustration of how these considerations can be applied in studies exploring the intersection of wellness and the LE.

Using revised Bloom’s taxonomy, some medical educators assume they can write multiple choice questions (MCQs) that specifically assess higher (analyze, apply) versus lower-order (recall) learning. The purpose of this study was to determine whether three key stakeholder groups (students, faculty, and education assessment experts) assign MCQs the same higher- or lower-order level. In Phase 1, stakeholders’ groups assigned 90 MCQs to Bloom’s levels. In Phase 2, faculty wrote 25 MCQs specifically intended as higher- or lower-order. Then, 10 students assigned these questions to Bloom’s levels. In Phase 1, there was low interrater reliability within the student group (Krippendorf’s alpha = 0.37), the faculty group (alpha = 0.37), and among three groups (alpha = 0.34) when assigning questions as higher- or lower-order. The assessment team alone had high interrater reliability (alpha = 0.90). In Phase 2, 63% of students agreed with the faculty as to whether the MCQs were higher- or lower-order. There was low agreement between paired faculty and student ratings (Cohen’s Kappa range .098–.448, mean .256). For many questions, faculty and students did not agree whether the questions were lower- or higher-order. While faculty may try to target specific levels of knowledge or clinical reasoning, students may approach the questions differently than intended.

INTRODUCTION: The usage of asynchronous resources such as blogs and podcasts is pervasive in academic medicine, despite little understanding of their actual effect on learner knowledge acquisition. This study sought to examine the objective effect of a blog post on knowledge acquisition and application among junior faculty in emergency medicine (EM) via randomized controlled study. METHODS: All accredited EM residency programs in the United States and Canada were contacted to identify assistant and associate program directors and medical education fellows for recruitment into this study. Upon enrollment, participants were randomized as to whether they received access to a supplemental blog post prior to listening to a podcast episode. After listening to the podcast episode, all participants completed an assessment that included a test of knowledge application and knowledge acquisition; demographic information was also obtained. RESULTS: Ultimately, 103 participants completed the study; the study closed for enrollment in July 2019. Data were nonnormally distributed and groups were compared using the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. There were no significant differences between the demographics of the two groups nor was there a significant difference in knowledge between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of a supplementary blog post did not increase junior faculty knowledge of a podcast episode.

Background Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. Methods We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. Results Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. Discussion Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

Summary Introduction Utilizing a qualitative phenomenological design, the Defining Successful Outcomes and Trade-offs study examined stakeholder perspectives regarding optimal healthcare delivery and outcomes for individuals with a difference/disorder of sex development (DSD). Objective We describe study methods and provide an overview of themes and subthemes. Study design Interviews were conducted with individuals with a DSD (n=24), parents of those with a DSD (n=19), healthcare providers (n=37), and others (n=30). Primary questions regarding clinical management of patients with DSD were: “What is a successful outcome?” and “How do you achieve it?” Results Themes included: understanding of DSD diagnosis and self-efficacy in management is necessary but complex; patient and family psychological well-being; support from others versus being stigmatized; affected person experiences physical health and accepts the implications of their condition; complexities in DSD decision making, roles and expectations; and knowledgeable providers and multidisciplinary teams are essential, notwithstanding persisting barriers (See Summary Figure). Participants recognized competing values potentially forcing trade-offs in decision making. Discussion. Recognition of diverse and sometimes conflicting perspectives regarding optimal pathways of care and outcomes – both within and among those with DSD and their providers –promises to enhance shared decision making. Conclusion Diverse perspectives and perceptions of trade-offs associated with DSD healthcare emphasize the need to tailor care for patients and families.

Background Clinical reasoning performance assessment is challenging because it is a complex, multi-dimensional construct. In addition, clinical reasoning performance can be impacted by contextual factors, leading to significant variation in performance. This phenomenon called context specificity has been described by social cognitive theories. Situated cognition theory, one of the social cognitive theories, posits that cognition emerges from the complex interplay of human beings with each other and the environment. It has been used as a valuable conceptual framework to explore context specificity in clinical reasoning and its assessment. We developed a conceptual model of clinical reasoning performance assessment based on situated cognition theory. In this paper, we use situated cognition theory and the conceptual model to explore how this lens alters the interpretation of articles or provides additional insights into the interactions between the assessee, patient, rater, environment, assessment method, and task. Methods We culled 17 articles from a systematic literature search of clinical reasoning performance assessment that explicitly or implicitly demonstrated a situated cognition perspective to provide an “enriched” sample with which to explore how contextual factors impact clinical reasoning performance assessment. Results We found evidence for dyadic, triadic, and quadratic interactions between different contextual factors, some of which led to dramatic changes in the assessment of clinical reasoning performance, even when knowledge requirements were not significantly different. Conclusions The analysis of the selected articles highlighted the value of a situated cognition perspective in understanding variations in clinical reasoning performance assessment. Prospective studies that evaluate the impact of modifying various contextual factors, while holding others constant, can provide deeper insights into the mechanisms by which context impacts clinical reasoning performance assessment.

PURPOSE Many factors influence the reliable assessment of medical students' competencies in the clerkships. The purpose of this study was to determine how many clerkship competency assessment scores were necessary to achieve an acceptable threshold of reliability. METHOD Clerkship student assessment data were collected during the 2015-2016 academic year as part of the medical school assessment program at the University of Michigan Medical School. Faculty and residents assigned competency assessment scores for third-year core clerkship students. Generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies were conducted using balanced, stratified, and random samples to examine the extent to which overall assessment scores could reliably differentiate between students' competency levels both within and across clerkships. RESULTS In the across-clerkship model, the residual error accounted for the largest proportion of variance (75%), whereas the variance attributed to the student and student-clerkship effects was much smaller (7% and 10.1%, respectively). D studies indicated that generalizability estimates for eight assessors within a clerkship varied across clerkships (G coefficients range = 0.000-0.795). Within clerkships, the number of assessors needed for optimal reliability varied from 4 to 17. CONCLUSIONS Minimal reliability was found in competency assessment scores for half of clerkships. The variability in reliability estimates across clerkships may be attributable to differences in scoring processes and assessor training. Other medical schools face similar variation in assessments of clerkship students; therefore, the authors hope this study will serve as a model for other institutions that wish to examine the reliability of their clerkship assessment scores.

Because change is ubiquitous in healthcare, clinicians must constantly make adaptations to their practice to provide the highest quality care to patients. In a previous article, Cutrer et al. described a metacognitive approach to learning based on self-regulation, which facilitates the development of the Master Adaptive Learner (MAL). The MAL process helps individuals to cultivate and demonstrate adaptive expertise, allowing them to investigate new concepts (learn) and create new solutions (innovate). An individual's ability to learn in this manner is driven by several internal characteristics and is also impacted by numerous aspects of their context. In this article, the authors examine the important internal and contextual factors that can impede or foster Master Adaptive Learning.

Clinical reasoning is an essential component of a health professional's practice. Yet clinical reasoning research has produced a notably fragmented body of literature. In this article, the authors describe the pause-and-reflect exercise they undertook during the execution of a synthesis of the literature on clinical reasoning in the health professions. Confronted with the challenge of establishing a shared understanding of the nature and relevant components of clinical reasoning, members of the review team paused to independently generate their own personal definitions and conceptualizations of the construct. Here, the authors describe the variability of definitions and conceptualizations of clinical reasoning present within their own team. Drawing on an analogy from mathematics, they hypothesize that the presence of differing "boundary conditions" could help explain individuals' differing conceptualizations of clinical reasoning and the fragmentation at play in the wider sphere of research on clinical reasoning. Specifically, boundary conditions refer to the practice of describing the conditions under which a given theory is expected to hold, or expected to have explanatory power. Given multiple theoretical frameworks, research methodologies, and assessment approaches contained within the clinical reasoning literature, different boundary conditions are likely at play. Open acknowledgment of different boundary conditions and explicit description of the conceptualization of clinical reasoning being adopted within a given study would improve research communication, support comprehensive approaches to teaching and assessing clinical reasoning, and perhaps encourage new collaborative partnerships among researchers who adopt different boundary conditions.

Rationale and Objectives The aims of our study were (1) to describe a new educational intervention for first-year medical students that gave a substantial, early exposure to radiology and (2) to examine how this early exposure was received by the students. Materials and Methods Our new curriculum incorporated a new 2-week course very early in the M1 year entitled Foundations of Diagnostics and Therapeutics. Among other topics, the course included a substantial introduction to radiology primarily through small-group seminars and online materials, administered using a flipped-classroom approach. The students were given pre- and postcourse surveys that assessed the degree to which they felt prepared to learn about radiology, as well as their interest in radiology. Results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Survey responses were obtained from 170 students before the course and 65 students afterward. Upon completing the course, students showed significantly increased academic interest in radiology (P = .008) and a heightened perception of the effect of radiology on patient care (P = .04), without a significant change in interest in pursuing radiology as a career. Students showed an overwhelmingly positive response to the course, although some noted that previous anatomy training would have been helpful. Eighty percent agreed or strongly agreed that the flipped-classroom structure was an effective educational model. Conclusions Our study demonstrated that students were very excited to gain exposure to radiology early in their medical school curriculum, and such exposure led to an improved perception of the field.

Medical school assessments should foster the development of higher-order thinking skills to support clinical reasoning and a solid foundation of knowledge. Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to assess student learning, and well-written MCQs can support learner engagement in higher levels of cognitive reasoning such as application or synthesis of knowledge. Bloom's taxonomy has been used to identify MCQs that assess students' critical thinking skills, with evidence suggesting that higher-order MCQs support a deeper conceptual understanding of scientific process skills. Similarly, clinical practice also requires learners to develop higher-order thinking skills that include all of Bloom's levels. Faculty question writers and examinees may approach the same material differently based on varying levels of knowledge and expertise, and these differences can influence the cognitive levels being measured by MCQs. Consequently, faculty question writers may perceive that certain MCQs require higher-order thinking skills to process the question, whereas examinees may only need to employ lower-order thinking skills to render a correct response. Likewise, seemingly lower-order questions may actually require higher-order thinking skills to respond correctly. In this Perspective, the authors describe some of the cognitive processes examinees use to respond to MCQs. The authors propose that various factors affect both the question writer and examinee's interaction with test material and subsequent cognitive processes necessary to answer a question.

As competency-based medical education is adopted across the training continuum, discussions regarding time-variable medical education have gained momentum, raising important issues that challenge the current regulatory environment and infrastructure of both undergraduate and graduate medical education in the United States. Implementing time-variable medical training will require recognizing, revising, and potentially reworking the multiple existing structures and regulations both internal and external to medical education that are not currently aligned with this type of system. In this article, the authors explore the impact of university financial structures, hospital infrastructures, national accrediting body standards and regulations, licensure and certification requirements, government funding, and clinical workforce models in the United States that are all intimately tied to discussions about flexible training times in undergraduate and graduate medical education. They also explore the implications of time-variable training to learners' transitions between medical school and residency, residency and fellowship, and ultimately graduate training and independent practice. Recommendations to realign existing structures to support and enhance competency-based, time-variable training across the continuum and suggestions for additional experimentation/demonstration projects to explore new training models are provided.

The introduction of competency-based medical education has shifted thinking from a fixed-time model to one stressing attained competencies, independent of the time needed to arrive at those competencies. In this article, the authors explore theoretical and conceptual issues related to time variability in medical training, starting with the Carroll model from the 1960s that put time in the equation of learning. They discuss mastery learning, deliberate practice, and learning curves. While such behaviorist theories apply well to structured courses and highly structured training settings, learning in the clinical workplace is not well captured in such theories or in the model that Carroll proposed. Important in clinical training are self-regulation and motivation; neurocognitive perspectives of time and learning; professional identity formation; and entrustment as an objective of trainingall of which may be viewed from the perspective of the time needed to complete training. The authors conclude that, in approaching time variability, the Carroll equation is too simplistic in its application to the breadth of medical training. The equation may be expanded to include variables that determine effective workplace learning, but future work will need to examine the validity of these additional factors.

Competency-based, time-variable medical education has reshaped the perceptions and practices of teachers, curriculum designers, faculty developers, clinician educators, and program administrators. This increasingly popular approach highlights the fact that learning among different individuals varies in duration, foundation, and goal. Time variability places particular demands on the assessment data that are so necessary for making decisions about learner progress. These decisions may be formative (e.g., feedback for improvement) or summative (e.g., decisions about advancing a student). This article identifies challenges to collecting assessment data and to making assessment decisions in a time-variable system. These challenges include managing assessment data, defining and making valid assessment decisions, innovating in assessment, and modeling the considerable complexity of assessment in real-world settings and richly interconnected social systems. There are hopeful signs of creativity in assessment both from researchers and practitioners, but the transition from a traditional to a competency-based medical education system will likely continue to create much controversy and offer opportunities for originality and innovation in assessment.