"I Had No Idea This Happened": Electronic Feedback on Clinical Reasoning for Hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Feedback on the diagnostic process has been proposed as a method of improving clinical reasoning and reducing diagnostic errors. Barriers to the delivery and receipt of feedback include time constraints and negative reactions. Given the shift toward asynchronous, digital communication, it is possible that electronic feedback ("e-feedback") could overcome these barriers. OBJECTIVES: We developed an e-feedback system for hospitalists around episodes of care escalation (transfers to ICU and rapid responses). The intervention was evaluated by measuring hospitalists' satisfaction with e-feedback and commitment to change. DESIGN: A qualitative survey study conducted at one academic medical center from February to June 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists - physicians and advanced practice providers. APPROACH: Two hospitalists, one internal medicine resident, and a nurse reviewed escalations of care on the hospitalist service each week using the Revised Safer Dx framework. Confidential feedback was emailed to the hospitalists involved in the patient's care. Hospitalists were asked to rate and explain their satisfaction with the e-feedback and whether they might modify their clinical practice based on the e-feedback. The open-ended text comments from the hospitalists were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework. RESULTS: Forty-nine out of fifty-eight hospitalists agreed to participate. One hundred five out of one hundred twenty-four (85%) e-feedback surveys that were sent were returned by the hospitalists. Hospitalists were highly satisfied with 67% (n = 70) of the e-feedback reports, moderately satisfied with 23% (n = 24), and not satisfied with 10% (n = 11). Six themes were identified based on analysis of the comments. Themes related to satisfaction with the intervention included appreciation for learning about patient outcomes, general appreciation of feedback on clinical care, and importance of detailed and specific feedback. Themes related to changing clinical practice included reflection on clinical decision-making, value of new insights, and anticipated future behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: E-feedback was well received by hospitalists. Their perspectives offer useful insights for enhancing electronic feedback interventions.

Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize clinical lessons learned by experienced hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data from hospitalists at five independently administered hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic area from February to June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 12 academic and 12 community-based hospitalists with ≥ 5 years of clinical experience. APPROACH: A constructivist qualitative approach was used and "reflexive thematic analysis" of interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were generated from the data based on clinical lessons learned by hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. The ideas included appreciating excellence in clinical reasoning as a core skill, connecting with patients and other members of the health care team to be able to tap into their insights, reflecting on the diagnostic process, committing to growth, and prioritizing self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies key lessons learned from the errors and successes encountered in patient care by clinically experienced hospitalists. These findings may prove helpful for individuals and groups that are authentically committed to moving along the continuum from diagnostic competence towards excellence.

Augenblickdiagnose in neurology: Revisiting 'diagnosis in the blink of an eye'.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The art of diagnosis in clinical neurology requires attentive listening and careful observation. In certain situations, a fragment of the history or a physical sign may be so distinctive that it allows clinicians to evoke a specific diagnosis. This quick mental process was previously referred to as 'Augenblickdiagnose' ('diagnosis in the blink of an eye') in a seminal paper by Dr. William Campbell in 1998. We aimed to revisit this concept by providing additional clinical vignettes. METHODS: The authors wrote clinical vignettes using examples from their own clinical practice and performed a non-systematic review of influential neurology textbooks using the words 'pathognomonic' and 'highly suggestive'. RESULTS: Twenty examples from various fields of neurology are presented in a table, stratified by major fields of neurology. A short educational reflection is provided for each diagnosis considered. CONCLUSION: 'Augenblickdiagnose' is an engaging teaching resource that also contributes to 'neurophilia', that is, a fascination for neurology, perhaps increasingly in today's modern neurology practice. However, multiple cognitive biases underlying mental shortcuts may lead to an incorrect diagnosis. It is important to stress that good clinical practice in neurology requires taking a thorough history and performing a careful neurological examination.

Embracing the future-is artificial intelligence already better? A comparative study of artificial intelligence performance in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to revolutionize patient care and clinical decision-making. This study aimed to explore the reliability of large language models in neurology by comparing the performance of an AI chatbot with neurologists in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted. A pool of clinical cases from the American Academy of Neurology's Question of the Day application was used as the basis for the study. The AI chatbot used was ChatGPT, based on GPT-3.5. The results were then compared to neurology peers who also answered the questions-a mean of 1500 neurologists/neurology residents. RESULTS: The study included 188 questions across 22 different categories. The AI chatbot demonstrated a mean success rate of 71.3% in providing correct answers, with varying levels of proficiency across different neurology categories. Compared to neurology peers, the AI chatbot performed at a similar level, with a mean success rate of 69.2% amongst peers. Additionally, the AI chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis in 85.0% of cases and it provided an adequate justification for its correct responses in 96.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the potential of AI, particularly large language models, in assisting with clinical reasoning and decision-making in neurology and emphasizes the importance of AI as a complementary tool to human expertise. Future advancements and refinements are needed to enhance the AI chatbot's performance and broaden its application across various medical specialties.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Non-standard diagnostic assessment reliability in psychiatry: a study in a Brazilian outpatient setting using Kappa.

The use of Structured Diagnostic Assessments (SDAs) is a solution for unreliability in psychiatry and the gold standard for diagnosis. However, except for studies between the 50 s and 70 s, reliability without the use of Non-SDAs (NSDA) is seldom tested, especially in non-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) countries. We aim to measure reliability between examiners with NSDAs for psychiatric disorders. We compared diagnostic agreement after clinician change, in an outpatient academic setting. We used inter-rater Kappa measuring 8 diagnostic groups: Depression (DD: F32, F33), Anxiety Related Disorders (ARD: F40-F49, F50-F59), Personality Disorders (PD: F60-F69), Bipolar Disorder (BD: F30, F31, F34.0, F38.1), Organic Mental Disorders (Org: F00-F09), Neurodevelopment Disorders (ND: F70-F99) and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSD: F20-F29). Cohen's Kappa measured agreement between groups, and Baphkar's test assessed if any diagnostic group have a higher tendency to change after a new diagnostic assessment. We analyzed 739 reevaluation pairs, from 99 subjects who attended IPUB's outpatient clinic. Overall inter-rater Kappa was moderate, and none of the groups had a different tendency to change. NSDA evaluation was moderately reliable, but the lack of some prevalent hypothesis inside the pairs raised concerns about NSDA sensitivity to some diagnoses. Diagnostic momentum bias (that is, a tendency to keep the last diagnosis observed) may have inflated the observed agreement. This research was approved by IPUB's ethical committee, registered under the CAAE33603220.1.0000.5263, and the UTN-U1111-1260-1212.

Motives and modifying factors for giving or rejecting psychiatric diagnoses in general medicine and psychiatry - a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: There is a discussion among general practitioners and psychiatrists regarding over-diagnosing versus under-reporting of psychiatric diagnoses. A deeper understanding of this topic is relevant for providing reasonable health care and for planning future studies. A crucial factor to understanding this discussion is the difference in the prevalence of a disease in each sector. One way to attain knowledge about such prevalences is the analysis of routine care data of the sector in question. However, diagnosis-related data might be modified by several additional influencing factors. AIMS: This study aims to explore what kind of motives and modifying factors play a role for or against giving psychiatric diagnoses in psychiatric and general medical settings. METHODS: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with German physicians in the fields of general medicine and psychiatry. Interviews were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed three major motivational categories for finding a diagnosis: (1) "objective matters" such as "categorisation for research"; (2) "functional and performance-related factors" such as "requirement for medication", "billing aspects" that go with certain diagnoses or "access to adequate care" and (3) "Individual factors" such as the "personality of a physician". Similarly, factors emerged that lead to not making psychiatric diagnoses like "fear of stigmatization among patients" or "detrimental insurance status with psychiatric diagnosis". Additionally participants mentioned other reasons for "not diagnosing a psychiatric diagnosis", such as "coding of other clinical pictures". CONCLUSION: The diagnostic process is a complex phenomenon that goes far beyond the identification of medical findings. This insight should be considered when processing and interpreting secondary data for designing health care systems or designing a study.

Impact of performance and information feedback on medical interns' confidence-accuracy calibration.

Diagnostic errors are a major, largely preventable, patient safety concern. Error interventions cannot feasibly be implemented for every patient that is seen. To identify cases at high risk of error, clinicians should have a good calibration between their perceived and actual accuracy. This experiment studied the impact of feedback on medical interns' calibration and diagnostic process. In a two-phase experiment, 125 medical interns from Dutch University Medical Centers were randomized to receive no feedback (control), feedback on their accuracy (performance feedback), or feedback with additional information on why a certain diagnosis was correct (information feedback) on 20 chest X-rays they diagnosed in a feedback phase. A test phase immediately followed this phase and had all interns diagnose an additional 10 X-rays without feedback. Outcome measures were confidence-accuracy calibration, diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and time to diagnose. Both feedback types improved overall confidence-accuracy calibration (R2No Feedback = 0.05, R2Performance Feedback = 0.12, R2Information Feedback = 0.19), in line with the individual improvements in diagnostic accuracy and confidence. We also report secondary analyses to examine how case difficulty affected calibration. Time to diagnose did not differ between conditions. Feedback improved interns' calibration. However, it is unclear whether this improvement reflects better confidence estimates or an improvement in accuracy. Future research should examine more experienced participants and non-visual specialties. Our results suggest that feedback is an effective intervention that could be beneficial as a tool to improve calibration, especially in cases that are not too difficult for learners.

The influence of a digital clinical reasoning test on medical student learning behavior during clinical clerkships.

Recently, a new digital clinical reasoning test (DCRT) was developed to evaluate students' clinical-reasoning skills. Although an assessment tool may be soundly constructed, it may still prove inadequate in practice by failing to function as intended. Therefore, more insight is needed into the effects of the DCRT in practice. Individual semi-structured interviews and template analysis were used to collect and process qualitative data. The template, based on the interview guide, contained six themes: (1) DCRT itself, (2) test debriefing, (3) reflection, (4) practice/workplace, (5) DCRT versus practice and (6) 'other'. Thirteen students were interviewed. The DCRT encourages students to engage more in formal education, self-study and workplace learning during their clerkships, particularly for those who received insufficient results. Although the faculty emphasizes the different purposes of the DCRT (assessment of/as/for learning), most students perceive the DCRT as an assessment of learning. This affects their motivation and the role they assign to it in their learning process. Although students appreciate the debriefing and reflection report for improvement, they struggle to fill the identified knowledge gaps due to the timing of receiving their results. Some students are supported by the DCRT in exhibiting lifelong learning behavior. This study has identified several ways in which the DCRT influences students' learning practices in a way that can benefit their clinical-reasoning skills. Additionally, it stresses the importance of ensuring the alignment of theoretical principles with real-world practice, both in the development and utilization of assessment tools and their content. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term impact of the DCRT on young physicians' working practice.

Clinical reasoning in pharmacy: What do eye movements and verbal protocols tell us about the processing of a case task?

This study investigates pharmacy students' reasoning while solving a case task concerning an acute patient counselling situation in a pharmacy. Participants' (N = 34) reasoning processes were investigated with written tasks utilizing eye-tracking in combination with verbal protocols. The case was presented in three pages, each page being followed by written questions. Eye movements were recorded during case processing. Success in the task required differentiating the relevant information from the task redundant information, and initial activation of several scripts and verification of the most likely one, when additional information became available. 2nd (n = 16) and 3rd (n = 18)-year students' and better and worse succeeding students' processes were compared. The results showed that only a few 2nd-year students solved the case correctly, whereas almost all of the 3rd-year students were successful. Generally, the average total processing times of the case material did not differ between the groups. However, better-succeeding and 3rd-year students processed the very first task-relevant sentences longer, indicating that they were able to focus on relevant information. Differences in the written answers to the 2nd and 3rd question were significant, whereas differences regarding the first question were not. Thus, eye-tracking seems to be able to capture illness script activation during case processing, but other methods are needed to depict the script verification process. Based on the results, pedagogical suggestions for advancing pharmacy education are discussed.

Promoting clinical reasoning in undergraduate Family Medicine curricula through concept mapping: a qualitative approach.

Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill for physicians, enabling them to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application. The gap between basic sciences and clinical practice persists as a challenge, with traditional teaching methods yet to effectively bridge it. Concept maps (CMs), visual tools for organizing and connecting knowledge, hold promise for enhancing clinical reasoning in the undergraduate medical curriculum. However, further research is required to ascertain if CMs facilitate clinical reasoning development in medical students transitioning from basic sciences to clinical practice. This study aims to delineate how CMs can facilitate clinical reasoning in patients with multimorbidity within undergraduate Family Medicine curricula, as perceived by students and tutors, and to understand the implementation process and resources required. This exploratory qualitative study formed a part of an action research project. While introducing an educational intervention to 5th-year medical students, we conducted a qualitative evaluation. Subsequently, semi-structured group interviews were conducted with students, and a focus group was conducted with tutors. Three main educational impacts were identified: integration of clinical information, support for patient management and care plan, and collaborative learning. Key aspects for successful CM implementation included clear instructions for map construction, using user-friendly software, allocating sufficient time for the task, encouraging group discussion of CMs, and incorporating tutor feedback. CMs are pedagogical tools that facilitate clinical information integration and support management and treatment plans, helping students better understand multimorbidity patients and promoting some components of clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education.

Enhancing clinical reasoning skills for medical students: a qualitative comparison of LLM-powered social robotic versus computer-based virtual patients within rheumatology.

Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used in medical education to train clinical reasoning (CR) skills. However, optimal VP design for enhancing interactivity and authenticity remains unclear. Novel interactive modalities, such as large language model (LLM)-enhanced social robotic VPs might increase interactivity and authenticity in CR skill practice. To evaluate medical students' perceptions of CR training using an LLM-enhanced social robotic VP platform compared with a conventional computer-based VP platform. A qualitative study involved 23 third-year medical students from Karolinska Institutet, who completed VP cases on an LLM-enhanced social robotic platform and a computer-based semi-linear platform. In-depth interviews assessed students' self-perceived acquirement of CR skills using the two platforms. Thematic analysis was employed to identify themes and sub-themes. Three main themes were identified: authenticity, VP application, and strengths and limitations. Students found the social robotic platform more authentic and engaging. It enabled highly interactive communication and expressed emotions, collectively offering a realistic experience. It facilitated active learning, hypothesis generation, and adaptive thinking. Limitations included lack of physical examination options and, occasionally, mechanical dialogue. The LLM-enhanced social robotic VP platform offers a more authentic and interactive learning experience compared to the conventional computer-based platform. Despite some limitations, it shows promise in training CR skills, communication, and adaptive thinking. Social robotic VPs may prove useful and safe learning environments for exposing medical students to diverse, highly interactive patient simulations.

Clinical reasoning in real-world practice: a primer for medical trainees and practitioners.

Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill and defining characteristic of the medical profession, which relates to intricate cognitive and decision-making processes that are needed to solve real-world clinical problems. However, much of our current competency-based medical education systems have focused on imparting swathes of content knowledge and skills to our medical trainees, without an adequate emphasis on strengthening the cognitive schema and psychological processes that govern actual decision-making in clinical environments. Nonetheless, flawed clinical reasoning has serious repercussions on patient care, as it is associated with diagnostic errors, inappropriate investigations, and incongruent or suboptimal management plans that can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. In this article, we discuss the psychological constructs of clinical reasoning in the form of cognitive 'thought processing' models and real-world contextual or emotional influences on clinical decision-making. In addition, we propose practical strategies, including pedagogical development of a personal cognitive schema, mitigating strategies to combat cognitive bias and flawed reasoning, and emotional regulation and self-care techniques, which can be adopted in medical training to optimize physicians' clinical reasoning in real-world practice that effectively translates learnt knowledge and skill sets into good decisions and outcomes.

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.

Effect of limiting checklist on the validity of objective structured clinical examination: A comparative validity study.

BACKGROUND: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a cornerstone of medical education that uses a structured approach to assess clinical skills and competency. A well-designed checklist is essential to enhance the validity of OSCE exams. This study aimed to determine whether a clinically discriminatory checklist (CDC) improves the validity of the OSCE compared with an assessment using the thoroughness checklist (TC), with a particular focus on clinical reasoning. METHODS: Fourteen OSCE case scenarios with both TC and CDC were developed. Each case was administered to 350-1170 fourth-year medical students in nine medical schools within the Seoul-Gyeonggi-area (Korea) during their OSCEs in 2019 and 2020. We also conducted interstation examinations after standardized patient encounters to assess clinical reasoning ability. The validities of OSCE scores based on the TCs and CDCs were compared. RESULTS: The OSCE using a CDC (rather than a TC) enabled better item discrimination but provided a lower internal consistency coefficient and worse standard measurement error. Clinical reasoning scores derived using patient notes were significantly correlated with OSCE scores but varied according to the characteristics of each case, indicating that OSCE scores derived using CDCs did not assess clinical reasoning ability more accurately than OSCE scores obtained using TCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that using a CDC to limit checklist items did not improve OSCE validity and did not reflect clinical reasoning ability. Further development of robust assessment strategies that support and evaluate clinical reasoning abilities is needed.

Around the World in 60 Minutes: How a Virtual Morning Report has Created an International Community for Clinical Reasoning and Medical Education.

Problem: Traditionally, clinical reasoning is developed with purposeful exposure to clinical problems through case-based learning and clinical reasoning conferences that harvest a collaborative exchange of information in real-life settings. While virtual platforms have greatly expanded access to remote clinical learning, case-based clinical reasoning opportunities are scarce in low and middle income countries. Intervention: The Clinical Problem Solvers (CPSolvers), a nonprofit organization focused on clinical reasoning education, launched Virtual Morning Report (VMR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. VMR is an open-access, case-based clinical reasoning virtual conference on the Zoom platform modeled after an academic morning report format available to participants worldwide. The authors conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with CPSolvers' VMR participants from 10 different countries to explore the experiences of the international participants of VMR. Context: The CPSolvers was founded by US physicians and has now expanded to include international members throughout all levels of the organization. VMR is open-access to all learners. Preliminary survey data collected from VMR sessions revealed 35% of the attendees were from non-English speaking countries and 53% from non US countries. Impact: Analysis generated four themes that captured the experiences of international participants of VMR: 1) Improving clinical reasoning skills where participants had little to no access to this education or content; 2) Creating a global community from a diverse, safe, and welcoming environment made possible by the virtual platform; 3) Allowing learners to become agents of change by providing tools and skills that are directly applicable in the setting in which they practice medicine; 4) Establishing a global platform, with low barriers to entry and open-access to expertise and quality teaching and content. Study participants agreed with the themes, supporting trustworthiness. Lessons Learned: Findings suggest VMR functions as and has grown into a global community of practice for clinical reasoning. The authors propose strategies and guiding principles based on the identified themes for educators to consider when building effective global learning communities. In an interdependent world where the virtual space eliminates the physical boundaries that silo educational opportunities, emphasis on thoughtful implementation of learning communities in a global context has the potential to reduce medical education disparities in the clinical reasoning space and beyond.

Reliability, validity and acceptability of an online clinical reasoning simulator for medical students: An international pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning skills are essential for decision-making. Current assessment methods are limited when testing clinical reasoning and management of uncertainty. This study evaluates the reliability, validity and acceptability of Practicum Script, an online simulation-based programme, for developing medical students' clinical reasoning skills using real-life cases. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted an international, multicentre pilot study using 20 clinical cases with 2457 final-year medical students from 21 schools worldwide. Psychometric analysis was performed (n = 1502 students completing at least 80% of cases). Classical estimates of reliability for three test domains (hypothesis generation, hypothesis argumentation and knowledge application) were calculated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. Validity evidence was obtained by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement alignment (MA). Items from the knowledge application domain were analysed using cognitive diagnostic modelling (CDM). Acceptability was evaluated by an anonymous student survey. RESULTS: Reliability estimates were high with narrow confidence intervals. CFA revealed acceptable goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed three-factor model. CDM analysis demonstrated good absolute test fit and high classification accuracy estimates. Student survey responses showed high levels of acceptability. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that Practicum Script is a useful resource for strengthening students' clinical reasoning skills and ability to manage uncertainty.

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.

Impact of reference panel composition on scores of script concordance test assessing basic nephrology knowledge in undergraduate medical education.

PURPOSE: In the assessment of basic medical knowledge, the composition of the reference panel between specialists and primary care (PC) physicians is a contentious issue. We assessed the effect of panel composition on the scores of undergraduate medical students in a script concordance test (SCT). METHODS: The scale of an SCT on basic nephrology knowledge was set by a panel of nephrologists or a mixed panel of nephrologists and PC physicians. The results of the SCTs were compared with ANOVA for repeated measurements. Concordance was assessed with Bland and Altman plots. RESULTS: Forty-five students completed the SCT. Their scores differed according to panel composition: 65.6 ± 9.73/100 points for nephrologists, and 70.27 ± 8.82 for the mixed panel, p < 0.001. Concordance between the scores was low with a bias of -4.27 ± 2.19 and a 95% limit of agreement of -8.96 to -0.38. Panel composition led to a change in the ranking of 71% of students (mean 3.6 ± 2.6 places). CONCLUSION: The composition of the reference panel, either specialist or mixed, for SCT assessment of basic knowledge has an impact on test results and student rankings.

Learning Clinical Reasoning: The Experience of Postgraduate Psychiatry Trainee Doctors in Qatar.

Phenomenon: As a core competency in medical education, clinical reasoning is a pillar for reducing medical errors and promoting patient safety. Clinical reasoning is a complex phenomenon studied through the lens of multiple theories. Although cognitive psychology theories transformed our understanding of clinical reasoning, the theories fell short of explaining the variations in clinical reasoning influenced by contextual factors. Social cognitive theories propose a dynamic relationship between learners' cognitive process and their social and physical environments. This dynamic relationship highlights the essential role of formal and informal learning environments for learning clinical reasoning. Approach: My research aimed to explore the personal experience of learning clinical reasoning in a sample of postgraduate psychiatry trainee doctors using cognitive psychology and social cognitive theories. A stratified convenience sample of seven psychiatry trainee doctors working in the Mental Health Services in Qatar completed semi-structured interviews in 2020. I analyzed the data manually using theoretical thematic analysis. Findings: I identified three overarching themes with multiple subthemes. The first theme was the hierarchical cultural impact on perceived learning opportunities and learning behavior. The first theme had two subthemes that explored the relationship with team members and the expected hierarchy roles. The second theme was the impact of emotions on the learning and execution of clinical reasoning.The second theme had three subthemes that explored the personal approach to managing emotions related to perceived self-efficacy and professional image. The third theme was characteristics of learning environments and their role in learning clinical reasoning. The last theme included three subthemes that explored stressful, autonomous, and interactive environments. Insights: The results accentuate the complexity of clinical reasoning. Trainees' experience of learning clinical reasoning was influenced by factors not controlled for in the curricula. These factors constitute a hidden curriculum with a significant influence on learning. Our local postgraduate training programmes will benefit from addressing the points raised in this study for effective and culturally sensitive clinical reasoning learning.