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.

Approaches to Teaching the Physical Exam to Preclerkship Medical Students: Results of a National Survey.

PURPOSE: To assess current approaches to teaching the physical exam to preclerkship students at U.S. medical schools. METHOD: The Directors of Clinical Skills Courses developed a 49-question survey addressing the approach, pedagogical methods, and assessment methods of preclerkship physical exam curricula. The survey was administered to all 141 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S. medical schools in October 2015. Results were aggregated across schools, and survey weights were used to adjust for response rate and school size. RESULTS: One hundred six medical schools (75%) responded. Seventy-nine percent of schools (84) began teaching the physical exam within the first two months of medical school. Fifty-six percent of schools (59) employed both a "head-to-toe" comprehensive approach and a clinical reasoning approach. Twenty-three percent (24) taught a portion of the physical exam interprofessionally. Videos, online modules, and simulators were used widely, and 39% of schools (41) used bedside ultrasonography. Schools reported a median of 4 formative assessments and 3 summative assessments, with 16% of schools (17) using criterion-based standard-setting methods for physical exam assessments. Results did not vary significantly by school size. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in how medical schools taught the physical exam to preclerkship students. Common pedagogical approaches included early initiation of physical exam instruction, use of technology, and methods that support clinical reasoning and competency-based medical education. Approaches used by a minority of schools included interprofessional education, ultrasound, and criterion-based standard-setting methods for assessments. Opportunities abound for research into the optimal methods for teaching the physical exam.

Step Up-Not On-The Step 2 Clinical Skills Exam: Directors of Clinical Skills Courses (DOCS) Oppose Ending Step 2 CS.

Recently, a student-initiated movement to end the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills and the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Performance Evaluation has gained momentum. These are the only national licensing examinations designed to assess clinical skills competence in the stepwise process through which physicians gain licensure and certification. Therefore, the movement to end these examinations and the ensuing debate merit careful consideration. The authors, elected representatives of the Directors of Clinical Skills Courses, an organization comprising clinical skills educators in the United States and beyond, believe abolishing the national clinical skills examinations would have a major negative impact on the clinical skills training of medical students, and that forfeiting a national clinical skills competency standard has the potential to diminish the quality of care provided to patients. In this Perspective, the authors offer important additional background information, outline key concerns regarding the consequences of ending these national clinical skills examinations, and provide recommendations for moving forward: reducing the costs for students, exploring alternatives, increasing the value and transparency of the current examinations, recognizing and enhancing the strengths of the current examinations, and engaging in a national dialogue about the issue.

Resources Used to Teach the Physical Exam to Preclerkship Medical Students: Results of a National Survey.

PURPOSE: To examine resources used in teaching the physical exam to preclerkship students at U.S. medical schools. METHOD: The Directors of Clinical Skills Courses developed a 49-question survey addressing resources and pedagogical methods employed in preclerkship physical exam curricula. The survey was sent to all 141 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools in October 2015. Results were averaged across schools, and data were weighted by class size. RESULTS: Results from 106 medical schools (75% response rate) identified a median of 59 hours devoted to teaching the physical exam. Thirty-eight percent of time spent teaching the physical exam involved the use of standardized patients, 30% used peer-to-peer practice, and 25% involved examining actual patients. Approximately half of practice time with actual patients was observed by faculty. At 48% of schools (51), less than 15% of practice time was with actual patients, and at 20% of schools (21) faculty never observed students practicing with actual patients. Forty-eight percent of schools (51) did not provide compensation for their outpatient clinical preceptors. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the resources used to teach the physical examination to preclerkship medical students. At some schools, the amount of faculty observation of students examining actual patients may not be enough for students to achieve competency. A significant percentage of faculty teaching the physical exam remain uncompensated for their effort. Improving faculty compensation and increasing use of senior students as teachers might allow for greater observation and feedback and improved physical exam skills among students.

Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.

After participating in a group peer-review exercise at a workshop presented by Academic Medicine and MedEdPORTAL editors at the 2015 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical Education Meeting, the authors realized that the way their work group reviewed a manuscript was very different from the way by which they each would have reviewed the paper as an individual. Further, the group peer-review process yielded more robust feedback for the manuscript's authors than did the traditional individual peer-review process. This realization motivated the authors to reconvene and collaborate to write this Commentary to share their experience and propose the expanded use of group peer review in medical education scholarship.The authors consider the benefits of a peer-review process for reviewers, including learning how to improve their own manuscripts. They suggest that the benefits of a team review model may be similar to those of teamwork and team-based learning in medicine and medical education. They call for research to investigate this, to provide evidence to support group review, and to determine whether specific paper types would benefit most from team review (e.g., particularly complex manuscripts, those receiving widely disparate initial individual reviews). In addition, the authors propose ways in which a team-based approach to peer review could be expanded by journals and institutions. They believe that exploring the use of group peer review potentially could create a new methodology for skill development in research and scholarly writing and could enhance the quality of medical education scholarship.