Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to the effective practice of autonomous health professionals and is, therefore, an essential capability to develop as students. This review aimed to systematically identify the tools available to health professional educators to evaluate students’ attainment of clinical reasoning capabilities in clinical placement and simulation settings. (2) Methods: A systemic review of seven databases was undertaken. Peer-reviewed, English-language publications reporting studies that developed or tested relevant tools were included. Searches included multiple terms related to clinical reasoning and health disciplines. Data regarding each tool’s conceptual basis and evaluated constructs were systematically extracted and analysed. (3) Results: Most of the 61 included papers evaluated students in medical and nursing disciplines, and over half reported on the Script Concordance Test or Lasater Clinical Judgement Rubric. A number of conceptual frameworks were referenced, though many papers did not reference any framework. (4) Conclusions: Overall, key outcomes highlighted an emphasis on diagnostic reasoning, as opposed to management reasoning. Tools were predominantly aligned with individual health disciplines and with limited cross-referencing within the field. Future research into clinical reasoning evaluation tools should build on and refer to existing approaches and consider contributions across professional disciplinary divides.

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.

Semantic competency as a marker of clinical reasoning performance

Background: This study sought to explore the relationship between semantic competence (or dyscompetence) displayed during “think-alouds” performed by resident and attending physicians and clinical reasoning performance. Methods: Internal medicine resident physicians and practicing internists participated in think-alouds performed after watching videos of typical presentations of common diseases in internal medicine. The think-alouds were evaluated for the presence of semantic competence and dyscompetence and these results were correlated with clinical reasoning performance. Results: We found that the length of think-aloud was negatively correlated with clinical reasoning performance. Beyond this finding, however, we did not find any other significant correlations between semantic competence or dyscompetence and clinical reasoning performance. Conclusions: While this study did not produce the previously hypothesized findings of correlation between semantic competence and clinical reasoning performance, we discuss the possible implications and areas of future study regarding the relationship between semantic competency and clinical reasoning performance.

Learning clinical reasoning in the workplace: a student perspective

Introduction Clinical reasoning is a core competency for every physician, as well as one of the most complex skills to learn. This study aims to provide insight into the perspective of learners by asking students about their own experiences with learning clinical reasoning throughout the medical Master’s curriculum. Methods We adopted a constructivist approach to organise three semi-structured focus groups within the Master’s curriculum at the medical school of the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen (Netherlands) between August and December 2019. Analysis was performed through template analysis. Results The study included 18 participants who (1) defined and interpreted clinical reasoning, (2) assessed the teaching methods and (3) discussed how they used their context in order to learn and perform clinical reasoning during their clinical rotations. They referred to a variety of contexts, including the clinical environment and various actors within it (e.g. supervisors, peers and patients). Conclusion With regard to the process by which medical students learn clinical reasoning in practice, this study stresses the importance of integrating context into the clinical reasoning process and the manner in which it is learnt. The full incorporation of the benefits of dialogue with the practice of clinical reasoning will require additional attention to educational interventions that empower students to (1) start conversations with their supervisors; (2) increase their engagement in peer and patient learning; (3) recognise bias and copy patterns in their learning process; and (4) embrace and propagate their role as boundary crossers.