RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Formulating a thoughtful problem representation (PR) is fundamental to sound clinical reasoning and an essential component of medical education. Aside from basic structural recommendations, little consensus exists on what characterizes high-quality PRs. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate characteristics that distinguish PRs created by experts and novices. METHODS: Early internal medicine residents (novices) and inpatient teaching faculty (experts) from two academic medical centers were given two written clinical vignettes and were instructed to write a PR and three-item differential diagnosis for each. Deductive content analysis described the characteristics comprising PRs. An initial codebook of characteristics was refined iteratively. The primary outcome was differences in characteristic frequencies between groups. The secondary outcome was characteristics correlating with diagnostic accuracy. Mixed-effects regression with random effects modeling compared case-level outcomes by group. RESULTS: Overall, 167 PRs were analyzed from 30 novices and 54 experts. Experts included 0.8 fewer comorbidities (p < .01) and 0.6 more examination findings (p = .01) than novices on average. Experts were less likely to include irrelevant comorbidities (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2-0.8) or a diagnosis (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.8) compared with novices. Experts encapsulated clinical data into higher-order terms (e.g., sepsis) than novices (p < .01) while including similar numbers of semantic qualifiers (SQs). Regardless of expertise level, PRs following a three-part structure (e.g., demographics, temporal course, and clinical syndrome) and including temporal SQs were associated with diagnostic accuracy (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with novices, expert PRs include less irrelevant data and synthesize information into higher-order concepts. Future studies should determine whether targeted educational interventions for PRs improve diagnostic accuracy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Case-based learning conferences are valuable to trainees, but growing clinical demands hinder consistent attendance. Social media increasingly acts as a venue for trainees to supplement their education asynchronously. We designed and implemented a web-based asynchronous clinical case discussion series on the Twitter social media platform to fill this educational gap. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this mixed methods study is to examine the nature of interactions among web-based case discussion participants and assess local attitudes regarding the educational intervention. METHODS: Starting in February 2018, we posted clinical vignettes to a dedicated Twitter account with the prompt "What else do you want to know?" to stimulate discussion. The authors replied in real time when case discussion participants requested additional details. Additional data about the case were posted at regular intervals to the discussion thread to advance the overall case discussion. Participants were asked to explain their reasoning and support their conclusions when appropriate. Web-based engagement was assessed using Twitter Analytics. Participants' posts were qualitatively analyzed for themes, with special attention to examples of using clinical reasoning skills. A codebook of types of participant posts and interactions was refined iteratively. Local engagement and attitudes at our institution were assessed by surveying internal medicine trainees (n=182) and faculty (n=165) after 6 months. RESULTS: Over a 6-month period, 11 live case discussions were engaged with by users 1773 times. A total of 86 Twitter profiles spanning 22 US states and 6 countries contributed to discussions among participants and the authors. Participants from all training levels were present, ranging from students to faculty. Interactions among participants and the case moderators were most commonly driven by clinical reasoning, including hypothesis-driven information gathering, discussing the differential diagnosis, and data interpretation or organization. Of 71 respondents to the local survey, 29 (41%) reported having a Twitter account. Of the 29 respondents with Twitter accounts, 17 (59%) reported participating in the case discussions. Respondents agreed that case participation increased both their clinical reasoning skills (15/17, 88%) and clinical knowledge (13/17, 76%). CONCLUSIONS: A social media-based serialized case discussion was a feasible asynchronous teaching method for engaging web-based learners of all levels in a clinical reasoning discussion. Further study should examine what factors drive trainee participation in web-based case discussions and under what circumstances asynchronous discussion might be preferred over in-person teaching activities.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Podcasts have emerged as an efficient method for widespread delivery of educational clinical reasoning (CR) content. However, the impact of such podcasts on CR skills has not been established. We set out to determine whether exposure to expert reasoning in a podcast format leads to enhanced CR skills. METHODS: This is a pseudo-randomized study of third-year medical students (MS3) to either a control group (n=22) of pre-established online CR modules, or intervention group (n=26) with both the online modules and novel CR podcasts. The podcasts were developed from four "clinical unknown" cases presented to expert clinician educators. After completing these assignments in weeks 1-2, weekly history and physical (H&P) notes were collected and graded according to the validated IDEA rubric between weeks 3-7. A longitudinal regression model was used to compare the H&P IDEA scores over time. Usage and perception of the podcasts was also assessed via survey data. RESULTS: Ninety control and 128 intervention H&Ps were scored. There was no statistical difference in the change of average IDEA scores between intervention (0.92, p=0.35) and control groups (-0.33, p=0.83). Intervention participants positively received the podcasts and noted increased discussion of CR principles from both their ward (3.1 vs. 2.4, p=0.08) and teaching (3.2 vs. 2.5, p=0.05) attendings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first objective, pseudo-randomized assessment of CR podcasts in undergraduate medical education. While we did not demonstrate significant improvement in IDEA scores, our data show that podcasts are a well-received tool that can prime learners to recognize CR principles.
