Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Games to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education: a scoping review.
Koelewijn, Gilbert; Hennus, Marije P; Kort, Helianthe S M; Frenkel, Joost; van Houwelingen, Thijs.
Afiliação
  • Koelewijn G; Research Group Technology for Healthcare Innovations, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Hennus MP; Department of Pediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Kort HSM; Department of Pediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • Frenkel J; Center for Research and Development of Health Professions Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  • van Houwelingen T; Research Group Technology for Healthcare Innovations, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Med Educ Online ; 29(1): 2316971, 2024 Dec 31.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38394053
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning.

METHODS:

A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors.

RESULTS:

Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning

steps:

patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient's problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated.

CONCLUSION:

All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Raciocínio Clínico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Raciocínio Clínico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article