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.

Assessment methods in medical specialist assessments in the DACH region - overview, critical examination and recommendations for further development.

Introduction: Specialist medical assessments fulfil the task of ensuring that physicians have the clinical competence to independently represent their field and provide the best possible care to patients, taking into account the current state of knowledge. To date, there are no comprehensive reports on the status of specialist assessments in the German-speaking countries (DACH). For that reason, the assessment methods used in the DACH region are compiled and critically evaluated in this article, and recommendations for further development are described. Methods: The websites of the following institutions were searched for information regarding testing methods used and the organisation of specialist examinations: Homepage of the Swiss Institute for Medical Continuing Education (SIWF), Homepage of the Academy of Physicians (Austria) and Homepage of the German Federal Medical Association (BAEK). Further links were considered and the results were presented in tabular form. The assessment methods used in the specialist assessments are critically examined with regard to established quality criteria and recommendations for the further development of the specialist assessments are derived from these. Results: The following assessment methods are already used in Switzerland and Austria: written examinations with multiple choice and short answer questions, structured oral examinations, the Script Concordance Test (SCT) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). In some cases, these assessment methods are combined (triangulation). In Germany, on the other hand, the oral examination has so far been conducted in an unstructured manner in the form of a 'collegial content discussion'. In order to test knowledge, practical and communicative competences equally, it is recommended to implement a triangulation of methods and follow the further recommendations described in this article. Conclusion: While there are already accepted approaches for quality-assured and competence-based specialist assessments in Switzerland and Austria at present, there is still a long way to go in Germany. Following the recommendations presented in this article, a contribution could be made to improving the specialist assessments in the DACH region according to the specialist assessments objectives.