Minding the gap: towards a shared clinical reasoning lexicon across the pre-clerkship/clerkship transition.

Teaching and learning of clinical reasoning are core principles of medical education. However, little guidance exists for faculty leaders to navigate curricular transitions between pre-clerkship and clerkship curricular phases. This study compares how educational leaders in these two phases understand clinical reasoning instruction. Previously reported cross-sectional surveys of pre-clerkship clinical skills course directors, and clerkship leaders were compared. Comparisons focused on perceived importance of a number of core clinical reasoning concepts, barriers to clinical reasoning instruction, level of familiarity across the undergraduate medical curriculum, and inclusion of clinical reasoning instruction in each area of the curriculum. Analyses were performed using the Mann Whitney U test. Both sets of leaders rated lack of curricular time as the largest barrier to teaching clinical reasoning. Clerkship leaders also noted a lack of faculty with skills to teach clinical reasoning concepts as a significant barrier (p < 0.02), while pre-clerkship leaders were more likely to perceive that these concepts were too advanced for their students (p < 0.001). Pre-clerkship leaders reported a higher level of familiarity with the clerkship curriculum than clerkship leaders reported of the pre-clerkship curriculum (p < 0.001). As faculty transition students from the pre-clerkship to the clerkship phase, a shared understanding of what is taught and when, accompanied by successful faculty development, may aid the development of longitudinal, milestone-based clinical reasoning instruction.

Perspectives on the current state of pre-clerkship clinical reasoning instruction in United States medical schools: a survey of clinical skills course directors.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical reasoning skills are essential for sound medical decision-making. Though many have suggested that clinical reasoning instruction should begin in pre-clerkship curricula, neither pre-clerkship clinical skills director perspectives nor extent of instruction is known. This survey study serves as part of a needs assessment for United States medical school pre-clerkship clinical reasoning curricula. METHODS: United States medical school pre-clerkship clinical skills course directors were surveyed about perceived importance of formal instruction on clinical reasoning concepts, inclusion of these concepts in the curricula, barriers to instruction, and familiarity with clerkship curricula. Results were analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics. Narrative comments were analyzed qualitatively for themes. RESULTS: Of 148 directors surveyed, 102 (69%) participated and 89 (60%) completed all closed-ended items. Each clinical reasoning concept was identified as somewhat to extremely important to include in pre-clerkship curricula by 90-99% of respondents. Pre-clerkship curricula included variable degrees of formal instruction for concepts, though most respondents rated their inclusion as moderate or extensive. Perceived importance of teaching most concepts moderately correlated with the degree of inclusion in the curriculum (Spearman's rho 0.39-0.44). Curricular time constraints and lack of faculty with skills to teach these concepts were the most frequently cited barriers to instruction. Respondents indicated being somewhat 57% (n=54) to extremely 29% (n=27) familiar with clerkship curricula at their institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to examine pre-clerkship clinical skills course director perspectives about clinical reasoning instruction and extent of its inclusion in their curricula.