Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BMC Med Educ ; 22(1): 573, 2022 Jul 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35883069

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Educación de Pregrado en Medicina , Estudiantes de Medicina , Dolor Abdominal/diagnóstico , Dolor Abdominal/etiología , Competencia Clínica , Razonamiento Clínico , Educación de Pregrado en Medicina/métodos , Evaluación Educacional/métodos , Humanos , Anamnesis
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...