Assessment of management reasoning: Design considerations drawn from analysis of simulated outpatient encounters.

PURPOSE: Management reasoning is a distinct subset of clinical reasoning. We sought to explore features to be considered when designing assessments of management reasoning. METHODS: This is a hybrid empirical research study, narrative review, and expert perspective. In 2021, we reviewed and discussed 10 videos of simulated (staged) physician-patient encounters, actively seeking actions that offered insights into assessment of management reasoning. We analyzed our own observations in conjunction with literature on clinical reasoning assessment, using a constant comparative qualitative approach. RESULTS: Distinguishing features of management reasoning that will influence its assessment include management scripts, shared decision-making, process knowledge, illness-specific knowledge, and tailoring of the encounter and management plan. Performance domains that merit special consideration include communication, integration of patient preferences, adherence to the management script, and prognostication. Additional facets of encounter variation include the clinical problem, clinical and nonclinical patient characteristics (including preferences, values, and resources), team/system characteristics, and encounter features. We cataloged several relevant assessment approaches including written/computer-based, simulation-based, and workplace-based modalities, and a variety of novel response formats. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of management reasoning could be improved with attention to the performance domains, facets of variation, and variety of approaches herein identified.

Programmatic Assessment of Clinical Reasoning: New Opportunities to Meet an Ongoing Challenge.

Issue: Clinical reasoning is essential to physicians' competence, yet assessment of clinical reasoning remains a significant challenge. Clinical reasoning is a complex, evolving, non-linear, context-driven, and content-specific construct which arguably cannot be assessed at one point in time or with a single method. This has posed challenges for educators for many decades, despite significant development of individual assessment methods. Evidence: Programmatic assessment is a systematic assessment approach that is gaining momentum across health professions education. Programmatic assessment, and in particular assessment for learning, is well-suited to address the challenges with clinical reasoning assessment. Several key principles of programmatic assessment are particularly well-aligned with developing a system to assess clinical reasoning: longitudinality, triangulation, use of a mix of assessment methods, proportionality, implementation of intermediate evaluations/reviews with faculty coaches, use of assessment for feedback, and increase in learners' agency. Repeated exposure and measurement are critical to develop a clinical reasoning assessment narrative, thus the assessment approach should optimally be longitudinal, providing multiple opportunities for growth and development. Triangulation provides a lens to assess the multidimensionality and contextuality of clinical reasoning and that of its different, yet related components, using a mix of different assessment methods. Proportionality ensures the richness of information on which to draw conclusions is commensurate with the stakes of the decision. Coaching facilitates the development of a feedback culture and allows to assess growth over time, while enhancing learners' agency. Implications: A programmatic assessment model of clinical reasoning that is developmentally oriented, optimizes learning though feedback and coaching, uses multiple assessment methods, and provides opportunity for meaningful triangulation of data can help address some of the challenges of clinical reasoning assessment.

Beyond thinking fast and slow: Implications of a transtheoretical model of clinical reasoning and error on teaching, assessment, and research.

From dual process to a family of theories known collectively as situativity, both micro and macro theories of cognition inform our current understanding of clinical reasoning (CR) and error. CR is a complex process that occurs in a complex environment, and a nuanced, expansive, integrated model of these theories is necessary to fully understand how CR is performed in the present day and in the future. In this perspective, we present these individual theories along with figures and descriptive cases for purposes of comparison before exploring the implications of a transtheoretical model of these theories for teaching, assessment, and research in CR and error.

The Impact of Simulation Based Training on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Performance Examination.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if simulation training is required to pass the FES skills test and assess the relationship between simulation training, clinical training, and FES skills test performance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ABS began requiring completion of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum for all applicants beginning in 2018. The role of simulation-based training in FES skills test performance after this requirement has not been evaluated. METHODS: De-identified data from the initial FES skills tests after the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum requirement was reviewed, and 731 unique participants with reported simulation experience demographics were identified. Self-reported data included sex, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, and simulator training hours (SE). Final FES skills exam scores and pass/fail designations for each participant were reported by the FES program staff. RESULTS: There was a statistically discernible difference in mean FES total scores between those reporting no SE and more experienced groups ( P = 0.002), and between less and more experienced UE and LE groups ( P < 0.001). There was no statistically discernible difference in FES skills exam pass rates between SE groups ( P = 0.2), but there was a strong relationship between clinical experience (UE & LE) and pass rate ( P < 0.001). Finally, on logistic regression analysis, LE was a discernible predictor of passing [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.8, P = 0.02], while UE [odds ratio (OR) = 1, 95% CI 0.8-1.3, P = 0.9] and SE (OR = 1,95% CI 0.9- 1.3, P = 0.7) were not. CONCLUSIONS: There is no threat to the validity of the FES skills test from a need for simulation training to pass the FES skills test. Similarly, the amount of simulation practice is not predictive of passing, but can improve performance on certain FES tasks.

Gender and Racial Representation Trends Among Internal Medicine Department Chairs from 2010-2020.

BACKGROUND: Quality medical education, reduction in health disparities, and healthcare research that includes all members of society are enhanced by diversity in departments of internal medicine (IM). Research on increasing diversity within the academic medicine student body or faculty notes the important role of leadership. Yet, there is a scarcity in research into diversity in leadership. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to go beyond aggregate numbers and answer the question: What is the level of parity representation, by gender and race, at department chair positions in academic IM departments? DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of race/ethnicity and gender in IM medical school departments from 2010 to 2020 was conducted using data from the American Association of Medical College's (AAMC) Faculty Roster. The proportion of IM department chairs to IM faculty by race/ethnicity for each year (2010-2020) was used to calculate the Leadership Parity Index (LPI) in this study. LPI by gender and by gender and race/ethnicity were also calculated for each year. RESULTS: In aggregate numbers, Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin faculty remain under-represented in academic IM each making up, on average, approximately 4% of the total IM faculty. The LPI calculations revealed that faculty who identified as White were consistently over-represented as department chairs while Asian faculty were consistently under-represented in leadership and ranked lowest in leadership parity among the ethnic groups studied. The leadership parity index also showed that women faculty across all races were under-represented. CONCLUSION: Women and Asian faculty encounter a ceiling effect that may be at play in IM departments. While significant progress still needs to be made in the representation of under-represented minorities, the findings of this study show that aggregate data does not provide a true picture of equity and parity in Internal Medicine faculties.

A scoping review of self-monitoring in graduate medical education.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and physicians-in-training have repeatedly demonstrated poor accuracy of global self-assessments, which are assessments removed from the context of a specific task, regardless of any intervention. Self-monitoring, an in-the-moment self-awareness of one's performance, offers a promising alternative to global self-assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to better understand the state of self-monitoring in graduate medical education. METHODS: We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's six steps: identifying a research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting included studies, charting the data, collating and summarising the results and consulting experts. Our search queried Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE databases from 1 January 1999 to 12 October 2022. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5363 unique articles. The authors identified 77 articles for inclusion. The search process helped create a framework to identify self-monitoring based on time and context dependence. More than 20 different terms were used to describe self-monitoring, and only 13 studies (17%) provided a definition for the equivalent term. Most research focused on post-performance self-judgements of a procedural skill (n = 31, 42%). Regardless of task, studies focused on self-judgement (n = 66, 86%) and measured the accuracy or impact on performance of self-monitoring (n = 41, 71%). Most self-monitoring was conducted post-task (n = 65, 84%). CONCLUSION: Self-monitoring is a time- and context-dependent phenomenon that seems promising as a research focus to improve clinical performance of trainees in graduate medical education and beyond. The landscape of current literature on self-monitoring is sparse and heterogeneous, suffering from a lack of theoretical underpinning, inconsistent terminology and insufficiently clear definitions.

Using the think aloud protocol in health professions education: an interview method for exploring thought processes: AMEE Guide No. 151.

The think aloud protocol (TAP) has two components, the think aloud interview, a technique for verbal data collection, and protocol analysis, a technique for predicting and analyzing verbal data. TAP is a useful method for those attempting to observe, explore, and understand individuals' thoughts, which remain among the most difficult research areas in health professions education. Notably, the long, complex history and heterogeneous implementation of variations of TAP can make it difficult to understand and implement rigorously. In this Guide, we define the TAP and related concepts, describe the origins, outline applications, offer a detailed roadmap for rigorous implementation as a technique for data collection and/or data analysis, and suggest opportunities for adaptation of the traditional TAP. We aim to arm researchers with the tools to implement a rigorous think aloud interview, while explaining its origins to empower them to adapt the traditional TAP intentionally and justifiably to modern health professions education research.

Management reasoning and patient-clinician interactions: Insights from shared decision-making and simulated outpatient encounters.

PURPOSE: To expand understanding of patient-clinician interactions in management reasoning. METHODS: We reviewed 10 videos of simulated patient-clinician encounters to identify instances of problematic and successful communication, then reviewed the videos again through the lens of two models of shared decision-making (SDM): an 'involvement-focused' model and a 'problem-focused' model. Using constant comparative qualitative analysis we explored the connections between these patient-clinician interactions and management reasoning. RESULTS: Problems in patient-clinician interactions included failures to: encourage patient autonomy; invite the patient's involvement in decision-making; convey the health impact of the problem; explore and address concerns and questions; explore the context of decision-making (including patient preferences); meet the patient where they are; integrate situational preferences and priorities; offer >1 viable option; work with the patient to solve a problem of mutual concern; explicitly agree to a final care plan; and build the patient-clinician relationship. Clinicians' 'management scripts' varied along a continuum of prioritizing clinician vs patient needs. Patients also have their own cognitive scripts that guide their interactions with clinicians. The involvement-focused and problem-focused SDM models illuminated distinct, complementary issues. CONCLUSIONS: Management reasoning is a deliberative interaction occurring in the space between individuals. Juxtaposing management reasoning alongside SDM generated numerous insights.

Distributed cognition: Theoretical insights and practical applications to health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 159.

Distributed cognition (DCog) is a member of the family of situativity theories that widens the lens of cognition from occurring solely inside the head to being socially, materially and temporally distributed within a dynamic system. The concept of extending the view of cognition to outside the head of a single health professional is relatively new in the healthcare system. DCog has been increasingly used by researchers to describe many ways in which health professionals perform in teams within structured clinical environments to deliver healthcare for patients. In this Guide, we expound ten central tenets of the macro (grand) theory of DCog (1. Cognition is decentralized in a system; 2. The unit of analysis is the system; 3. Cognitive processes are distributed; 4. Cognitive processes emerge from interactions; 5. Cognitive processes are interdependent; 6. Social organization is a cognitive architecture; 7. Division of labour; 8. Social organization is a system of communication; 9. Buffering and filtering; 10. Cognitive processes are encultured) to provide theoretical insights as well as practical applications to the field of health professions education.

Do All Roads Lead to Full Participation? Examining Trajectories of Clinical Educators in Graduate Medical Education through Situated Learning Theory.

Phenomenon: As new faculty members begin their careers in Graduate Medical Education, each begins a journey of Professional Identity Formation from the periphery of their educational communities. The trajectories traveled vary widely, and full participation in a given educational community is not assured. While some medical school and post-graduate training programs may nurture Professional Identity Formation, there is scant support for faculty. To date, the trajectories that Graduate Medical Education faculty travel, what may derail inbound trajectories, and what tools Graduate Medical Education faculty use to navigate these trajectories have not been explicitly described. We explore these three questions here. Approach: Communities of Practice, a component of Situated Learning Theory, serves as a helpful framework to explore trajectories of educator identity development among Graduate Medical Educators. We used a inductive and deductive approach to Thematic Analysis, with Situated Learning Theory as our interpretive frame. Semi-structured interviews of faculty members of GME programs matriculating into a Health Professions Education Program were conducted, focusing on participants' lived experiences in medical education and how these experiences shaped their Professional Identity Formation. Findings: Participants noted peripheral, inbound, boundary, and outbound trajectories, but not an insider trajectory. Trajectory derailment was attributed to competing demands, imposter syndrome and gendered marginality. Modes of belonging were critical tools participants used to shape PIF, not only engagement with educator roles but disengagement with other roles; imagination of future roles with the support of mentors; and fluid alignment with multiple mutually reinforcing identities. Participants identified boundary objects like resumes and formal roles that helped them negotiate across Community of Practice boundaries. Insights: Despite a desire for full participation, some clinical educators remain marginal, struggling along a peripheral trajectory. Further research exploring this struggle and potential interventions to strengthen modes of belonging and boundary objects is critical to create equitable access to the inbound trajectory for all of our colleagues, leaving the choice of trajectories up to them.

Clinical reasoning: What do nurses, physicians, and students reason about.

Clinical reasoning is a core ability in the health professions, but the term is conceptualised in multiple ways within and across professions. For interprofessional teamwork it is indispensable to recognise the differences in understanding between professions. Therefore, our aim was to investigate how nurses, physicians, and medical and nursing students define clinical reasoning. We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with an interprofessional group from six countries and qualitatively analysed their definitions of clinical reasoning based on a coding guide. Our results showed similarities across professions, such as the emphasis on clinical skills as part of clinical reasoning. But we also revealed differences, such as a more patient-centered view and a broader understanding of the clinical reasoning concept in nurses and nursing students. The explicit sharing and discussion of differences in the understanding of clinical reasoning across health professions can provide valuable insights into the perspectives of different team members on clinical practice and education. This understanding may lead to improved interprofessional collaboration, and our study's categories and themes can serve as a basis for such discussions.

Extending growth curves: a trajectory monitoring approach to identification and interventions in struggling medical student learners.

Given gaps in both identifying and providing targeted interventions to struggling learners, the purpose of this study is to both improve rapid identification and to improve individualized academic advising for learners using this visual representation of performance. Across three graduating classes, individual growth curves were calculated for each student on National Board of Medical Examiners customized assessments during the pre-clerkship period using their deviation from the class average at each assessment point. These deviation scores were cumulatively summed over time and were regressed onto the sequence of exams. We analyzed the difference between the regression slopes of those students placed on Academic Probation (AP) versus not, as well as differences in slopes based on the timing of when a struggling learner was placed on AP to explore learner trajectory after identification. Students on AP had an average growth slope of - 6.06 compared to + 0.89 for those not on AP. Findings also suggested that students who were placed on AP early during pre-clerkship showed significant improvement (positive changes in trajectory) compared to students identified later in the curriculum. Our findings suggest that earlier academic probation and intervention with struggling learners may have a positive effect on academic trajectory. Future research can better explore how academic trajectory monitoring and performance review can be regularly used in advising sessions with students.

Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review.

There is emerging interest in understanding group decision making among a team of health professionals. Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis to depict premature consensus seeking in highly cohesive groups, is a theory that has been widely discussed in disciplines outside health care. However, it remains unclear how it has been conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professionals conducting patient care. This scoping review aimed to examine the conceptualization of groupthink in health care, empirical research conducted in healthcare teams, and recommendations to avoid groupthink. Eight databases were systematically searched for articles focusing on groupthink among health professional teams using a scoping review methodology. A total of 22 articles were included-most were commentaries or narrative reviews with only four empirical research studies. This review found that focus on groupthink and group decision making in medicine is relatively new and growing in interest. Few empirical studies on groupthink in health professional teams have been performed and there is conceptual disagreement on how to interpret groupthink in the context of clinical practice. Future research should develop a theoretical framework that applies groupthink theory to clinical decision making and medical education, validate the groupthink framework in clinical settings, develop measures of groupthink, evaluate interventions that mitigate groupthink in clinical practice, and examine how groupthink may be situated amidst other emerging social cognitive theories of collaborative clinical decision making.

Sharing the Bandwidth in Cognitively Overloaded Teams and Systems: Mechanistic Insights from a Walk on the Wild Side of Clinical Reasoning.

IssuePrevious work from the diagnostic error literature has provided indirect evidence that faulty clinical reasoning may be the most frequent cause of error when attaching a diagnostic label. The precise mechanisms underlying diagnostic error are unclear and continue to be subject to considerable theory informed debate in the clinical reasoning literature. Evidence: We take a theoretical approach to merging these two worlds of literature by first zooming out using distributed cognition as a social cognitive lens (macro theory) to develop a view of the process and outcome of clinical reasoning occurring in the wild - defined as the integrated clinical workplace - the natural habitat of clinicians working within teams. We then zoom in using the novel combination of cognitive load theory and distributed cognition to provide additional theoretical insights into the potential mechanisms of error. Implications: Through the lenses of distributed cognition and cognitive load theory, we can begin to prospectively investigate how cognitive overload is represented and shared within interprofessional teams over time and space and how this influences clinical reasoning performance and leads to error. We believe that this work will help teams manage cognitive load and prevent error.

The pursuit of fairness in assessment: Looking beyond the objective.

Health professions education has undergone significant changes over the last few decades, including the rise of competency-based medical education, a shift to authentic workplace-based assessments, and increased emphasis on programmes of assessment. Despite these changes, there is still a commonly held assumption that objectivity always leads to and is the only way to achieve fairness in assessment. However, there are well-documented limitations to using objectivity as the 'gold standard' to which assessments are judged. Fairness, on the other hand, is a fundamental quality of assessment and a principle that almost no one contests. Taking a step back and changing perspectives to focus on fairness in assessment may help re-set a traditional objective approach and identify an equal role for subjective human judgement in assessment alongside objective methods. This paper explores fairness as a fundamental quality of assessments. This approach legitimises human judgement and shared subjectivity in assessment decisions alongside objective methods. Widening the answer to the question: 'What is fair assessment' to include not only objectivity but also expert human judgement and shared subjectivity can add significant value in ensuring learners are better equipped to be the health professionals required of the 21st century.

Pre-clerkship EPA assessments: a thematic analysis of rater cognition.

BACKGROUND: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) assessments measure learners' competence with an entrustment or supervisory scale. Designed for workplace-based assessment EPA assessments have also been proposed for undergraduate medical education (UME), where assessments frequently occur outside the workplace and may be less intuitive, raising validity concerns. This study explored how assessors make entrustment determinations in UME, with additional specific comparison based on familiarity with prior performance in the context of longitudinal student-assessor relationships. METHODS: A qualitative approach using think-alouds was employed. Assessors assessed two students (familiar and unfamiliar) completing a history and physical examination using a supervisory scale and then thought-aloud after each assessment. We conducted a thematic analysis of assessors' response processes and compared them based on their familiarity with a student. RESULTS: Four themes and fifteen subthemes were identified. The most prevalent theme related to "student performance." The other three themes included "frame of reference," "assessor uncertainty," and "the patient." "Previous student performance" and "affective reactions" were subthemes more likely to inform scoring when faculty were familiar with a student, while unfamiliar faculty were more likely to reference "self" and "lack confidence in their ability to assess." CONCLUSIONS: Student performance appears to be assessors' main consideration for all students, providing some validity evidence for the response process in EPA assessments. Several problematic themes could be addressed with faculty development while others appear to be inherent to entrustment and may be more challenging to mitigate. Differences based on assessor familiarity with student merits further research on how trust develops over time.

Making it fair: Learners' and assessors' perspectives of the attributes of fair judgement.

INTRODUCTION: Optimising the use of subjective human judgement in assessment requires understanding what makes judgement fair. Whilst fairness cannot be simplistically defined, the underpinnings of fair judgement within the literature have been previously combined to create a theoretically-constructed conceptual model. However understanding assessors' and learners' perceptions of what is fair human judgement is also necessary. The aim of this study is to explore assessors' and learners' perceptions of fair human judgement, and to compare these to the conceptual model. METHODS: A thematic analysis approach was used. A purposive sample of twelve assessors and eight post-graduate trainees undertook semi-structured interviews using vignettes. Themes were identified using the process of constant comparison. Collection, analysis and coding of the data occurred simultaneously in an iterative manner until saturation was reached. RESULTS: This study supported the literature-derived conceptual model suggesting fairness is a multi-dimensional construct with components at individual, system and environmental levels. At an individual level, contextual, longitudinally-collected evidence, which is supported by narrative, and falls within ill-defined boundaries is essential for fair judgement. Assessor agility and expertise are needed to interpret and interrogate evidence, identify boundaries and provide narrative feedback to allow for improvement. At a system level, factors such as multiple opportunities to demonstrate competence and improvement, multiple assessors to allow for different perspectives to be triangulated, and documentation are needed for fair judgement. These system features can be optimized through procedural fairness. Finally, appropriate learning and working environments which considers patient needs and learners personal circumstances are needed for fair judgments. DISCUSSION: This study builds on the theory-derived conceptual model demonstrating the components of fair judgement can be explicitly articulated whilst embracing the complexity and contextual nature of health-professions assessment. Thus it provides a narrative to support dialogue between learner, assessor and institutions about ensuring fair judgements in assessment.

Assessing open-book examination in medical education: The time is now.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the feasibility of holding secure closed-book examinations in medical education is compromised. In this Personal View, we compare the underlying reasoning for using open-book and closed-book exams. We rethink the role of open-book assessment and offer ways in which we believe they can complement closed-book exams. We highlight the gap in research, highlight future directions, and call on medical educators to seize our current golden opportunity to explore the impact of open-book exams - on their own or combined to closed-book tests, as a blended approach - on learners, educators, and licensing bodies.

Gathering Validity Evidence on an Internal Medicine Clerkship Multistep Exam to Assess Medical Student Analytic Ability.

Construct: The definition of clinical reasoning may vary among health profession educators. However, for the purpose of this paper, clinical reasoning is defined as the cognitive processes that are involved in the steps of information gathering, problem representation, generating a differential diagnosis, providing a diagnostic justification to arrive at a leading diagnosis, and formulating diagnostic and management plans. Background: Expert performance in clinical reasoning is essential for success as a physician, and has been difficult for clerkship directors to observe and quantify in a way that fosters the instruction and assessment of clinical reasoning. The purpose of this study was to gather validity evidence for the Multistep exam (MSX) format used by our medicine clerkship to assess analytical clinical reasoning abilities; we did this by examining the relationship between scores on the MSX and other external measures of clinical reasoning abilities. This analysis used dual process theory as the main theoretical framework of clinical reasoning, as well as aspects of Kane's validity framework to guide the selection of validity evidence for the investigation. We hypothesized that there would be an association between the MSX (a three-step clinical reasoning tool developed locally), and the USMLE Step 2 CS, as they share similar concepts in assessing the clinical reasoning of students. We examined the relationship between overall scores on the MSX and the Step 2 CS Integrated Clinical Encounter (ICE) score, in which the student articulates their reasoning for simulated patient cases, while controlling for examinee's internal medicine clerkship performance measures such as the NBME subject exam score and the Medicine clerkship OSCE score. Approach: A total 477 of 487 (97.9%) medical students, representing the graduating classes of 2015, 2016, 2017, who took the MSX at the end of each medicine clerkship (2012-2016), and Step 2 CS (2013-2017) were included in this study. Correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis were used to examine the impact of the primary explanatory variables of interest (MSX) onto the outcome variable (ICE score) when controlling for baseline variables (Medicine OSCE and NBME Medicine subject exam). Findings: The overall MSX score had a significant, positive correlation with the Step 2 CS ICE score (r = .26, P < .01). The overall MSX score was a significant predictor of Step 2 CS ICE score (ß = .19, P < .001), explaining an additional 4% of the variance of ICE beyond the NBME Medicine subject score and the Medicine OSCE score (Adjusted R2 = 13%). Conclusion: The stepwise format of the MSX provides a tool to observe clinical reasoning performance, which can be used in an assessment system to provide feedback to students on their analytical clinical reasoning. Future studies should focus on gaining additional validity evidence across different learners and multiple medical schools.

Why is it so difficult to implement a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum? A multicenter interview study on the barriers perceived by European health professions educators.

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.