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.

Planning a Collection of Virtual Patients to Train Clinical Reasoning: A Blueprint Representative of the European Population.

BACKGROUND: Virtual patients (VPs) are a suitable method for students to train their clinical reasoning abilities. We describe a process of developing a blueprint for a diverse and realistic VP collection (prior to VP creation) that facilitates deliberate practice of clinical reasoning and meets educational requirements of medical schools. METHODS: An international and interdisciplinary partnership of five European countries developed a blueprint for a collection of 200 VPs in four steps: (1) Defining the criteria (e.g., key symptoms, age, sex) and categorizing them into disease-, patient-, encounter- and learner-related, (2) Identifying data sources for assessing the representativeness of the collection, (3) Populating the blueprint, and (4) Refining and reaching consensus. RESULTS: The blueprint is publicly available and covers 29 key symptoms and 176 final diagnoses including the most prevalent medical conditions in Europe. Moreover, our analyses showed that the blueprint appears to be representative of the European population. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the blueprint required a stepwise approach, which can be replicated for the creation of other VP or case collections. We consider the blueprint an appropriate starting point for the actual creation of the VPs, but constant updating and refining is needed.

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.

Adaptation of an international virtual patient collection to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed new global challenges for teaching. We met these challenges as an international collaboration by adapting a collection of virtual patients for clinical reasoning training to this novel context.

Incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus during 26 years of observation and prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis in the later years.

UNLABELLED: The prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) varies greatly between countries. However, over the past several decades, a global rise in the incidence of T1D in the pediatric population has been noted. The aim of our study was to investigate the incidence of T1D in children living in the Lesser Poland during the period of time from January 1, 1987, to December 31, 2012, and to analyze the demographic characteristics and occurrence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in patients with newly diagnosed T1D in the second part of the study (2006-2012). During 26 years, 636 children (331 boys, 305 girls) aged 0-14 years were newly diagnosed with T1D (0-4 years old, n = 131; 5-9 years old, n = 253, 10-14 years old, n = 252). The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) ranged significantly (p < 0.001) from 5.2/100,000/year in 1987 to 21.9/100,000/year in 2012. The highest SIR was observed in age group 5-9 years old (21.2) and the lowest in 0-4 years old (8.8). There was no association with sex or living in urban or rural area. On admission, DKA was diagnosed in 22.4 % of patients. There were no significant differences relating to the presence of DKA (p = 0.912) in subsequent years. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of T1D among children is increasing rapidly with the highest SIR in the 5-9 years old age group. DKA is still an important problem in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The incidence of pediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus in Europe is increasing. The initial manifestation of the type 1 diabetes mellitus is diabetic ketoacidosis. What is New: • This is the longest (26 years) continuous analysis of the incidence of type 1 diabetes in Poland and the first analysis focused on the incidence rate and also on presence of diabetic ketoacidosis.