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.

Learning clinical reasoning in the workplace: a student perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning is a core competency for every physician, as well as one of the most complex skills to learn. This study aims to provide insight into the perspective of learners by asking students about their own experiences with learning clinical reasoning throughout the medical Master's curriculum. METHODS: We adopted a constructivist approach to organise three semi-structured focus groups within the Master's curriculum at the medical school of the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen (Netherlands) between August and December 2019. Analysis was performed through template analysis. RESULTS: The study included 18 participants who (1) defined and interpreted clinical reasoning, (2) assessed the teaching methods and (3) discussed how they used their context in order to learn and perform clinical reasoning during their clinical rotations. They referred to a variety of contexts, including the clinical environment and various actors within it (e.g. supervisors, peers and patients). CONCLUSION: With regard to the process by which medical students learn clinical reasoning in practice, this study stresses the importance of integrating context into the clinical reasoning process and the manner in which it is learnt. The full incorporation of the benefits of dialogue with the practice of clinical reasoning will require additional attention to educational interventions that empower students to (1) start conversations with their supervisors; (2) increase their engagement in peer and patient learning; (3) recognise bias and copy patterns in their learning process; and (4) embrace and propagate their role as boundary crossers.