Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause significant patient harm. The clinician's ultimate goal is to achieve diagnostic excellence in order to serve patients safely. This can be accomplished by learning from both errors and successes in patient care. However, the extent to which clinicians grow and navigate diagnostic errors and successes in patient care is poorly understood. Clinically experienced hospitalists, who have cared for numerous acutely ill patients, should have great insights from their successes and mistakes to inform others striving for excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize clinical lessons learned by experienced hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. DESIGN: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect qualitative data from hospitalists at five independently administered hospitals in the Mid-Atlantic area from February to June 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 12 academic and 12 community-based hospitalists with ≥ 5 years of clinical experience. APPROACH: A constructivist qualitative approach was used and "reflexive thematic analysis" of interview transcripts was conducted to identify themes and patterns of meaning across the dataset. RESULTS: Five themes were generated from the data based on clinical lessons learned by hospitalists from diagnostic errors and successes. The ideas included appreciating excellence in clinical reasoning as a core skill, connecting with patients and other members of the health care team to be able to tap into their insights, reflecting on the diagnostic process, committing to growth, and prioritizing self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies key lessons learned from the errors and successes encountered in patient care by clinically experienced hospitalists. These findings may prove helpful for individuals and groups that are authentically committed to moving along the continuum from diagnostic competence towards excellence.

Embracing the future-is artificial intelligence already better? A comparative study of artificial intelligence performance in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to revolutionize patient care and clinical decision-making. This study aimed to explore the reliability of large language models in neurology by comparing the performance of an AI chatbot with neurologists in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted. A pool of clinical cases from the American Academy of Neurology's Question of the Day application was used as the basis for the study. The AI chatbot used was ChatGPT, based on GPT-3.5. The results were then compared to neurology peers who also answered the questions-a mean of 1500 neurologists/neurology residents. RESULTS: The study included 188 questions across 22 different categories. The AI chatbot demonstrated a mean success rate of 71.3% in providing correct answers, with varying levels of proficiency across different neurology categories. Compared to neurology peers, the AI chatbot performed at a similar level, with a mean success rate of 69.2% amongst peers. Additionally, the AI chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis in 85.0% of cases and it provided an adequate justification for its correct responses in 96.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the potential of AI, particularly large language models, in assisting with clinical reasoning and decision-making in neurology and emphasizes the importance of AI as a complementary tool to human expertise. Future advancements and refinements are needed to enhance the AI chatbot's performance and broaden its application across various medical specialties.

Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

Motives and modifying factors for giving or rejecting psychiatric diagnoses in general medicine and psychiatry - a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: There is a discussion among general practitioners and psychiatrists regarding over-diagnosing versus under-reporting of psychiatric diagnoses. A deeper understanding of this topic is relevant for providing reasonable health care and for planning future studies. A crucial factor to understanding this discussion is the difference in the prevalence of a disease in each sector. One way to attain knowledge about such prevalences is the analysis of routine care data of the sector in question. However, diagnosis-related data might be modified by several additional influencing factors. AIMS: This study aims to explore what kind of motives and modifying factors play a role for or against giving psychiatric diagnoses in psychiatric and general medical settings. METHODS: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with German physicians in the fields of general medicine and psychiatry. Interviews were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed three major motivational categories for finding a diagnosis: (1) "objective matters" such as "categorisation for research"; (2) "functional and performance-related factors" such as "requirement for medication", "billing aspects" that go with certain diagnoses or "access to adequate care" and (3) "Individual factors" such as the "personality of a physician". Similarly, factors emerged that lead to not making psychiatric diagnoses like "fear of stigmatization among patients" or "detrimental insurance status with psychiatric diagnosis". Additionally participants mentioned other reasons for "not diagnosing a psychiatric diagnosis", such as "coding of other clinical pictures". CONCLUSION: The diagnostic process is a complex phenomenon that goes far beyond the identification of medical findings. This insight should be considered when processing and interpreting secondary data for designing health care systems or designing a study.

Impact of performance and information feedback on medical interns' confidence-accuracy calibration.

Diagnostic errors are a major, largely preventable, patient safety concern. Error interventions cannot feasibly be implemented for every patient that is seen. To identify cases at high risk of error, clinicians should have a good calibration between their perceived and actual accuracy. This experiment studied the impact of feedback on medical interns' calibration and diagnostic process. In a two-phase experiment, 125 medical interns from Dutch University Medical Centers were randomized to receive no feedback (control), feedback on their accuracy (performance feedback), or feedback with additional information on why a certain diagnosis was correct (information feedback) on 20 chest X-rays they diagnosed in a feedback phase. A test phase immediately followed this phase and had all interns diagnose an additional 10 X-rays without feedback. Outcome measures were confidence-accuracy calibration, diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and time to diagnose. Both feedback types improved overall confidence-accuracy calibration (R2No Feedback = 0.05, R2Performance Feedback = 0.12, R2Information Feedback = 0.19), in line with the individual improvements in diagnostic accuracy and confidence. We also report secondary analyses to examine how case difficulty affected calibration. Time to diagnose did not differ between conditions. Feedback improved interns' calibration. However, it is unclear whether this improvement reflects better confidence estimates or an improvement in accuracy. Future research should examine more experienced participants and non-visual specialties. Our results suggest that feedback is an effective intervention that could be beneficial as a tool to improve calibration, especially in cases that are not too difficult for learners.

Clinical reasoning in pharmacy: What do eye movements and verbal protocols tell us about the processing of a case task?

This study investigates pharmacy students' reasoning while solving a case task concerning an acute patient counselling situation in a pharmacy. Participants' (N = 34) reasoning processes were investigated with written tasks utilizing eye-tracking in combination with verbal protocols. The case was presented in three pages, each page being followed by written questions. Eye movements were recorded during case processing. Success in the task required differentiating the relevant information from the task redundant information, and initial activation of several scripts and verification of the most likely one, when additional information became available. 2nd (n = 16) and 3rd (n = 18)-year students' and better and worse succeeding students' processes were compared. The results showed that only a few 2nd-year students solved the case correctly, whereas almost all of the 3rd-year students were successful. Generally, the average total processing times of the case material did not differ between the groups. However, better-succeeding and 3rd-year students processed the very first task-relevant sentences longer, indicating that they were able to focus on relevant information. Differences in the written answers to the 2nd and 3rd question were significant, whereas differences regarding the first question were not. Thus, eye-tracking seems to be able to capture illness script activation during case processing, but other methods are needed to depict the script verification process. Based on the results, pedagogical suggestions for advancing pharmacy education are discussed.

Promoting clinical reasoning in undergraduate Family Medicine curricula through concept mapping: a qualitative approach.

Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill for physicians, enabling them to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application. The gap between basic sciences and clinical practice persists as a challenge, with traditional teaching methods yet to effectively bridge it. Concept maps (CMs), visual tools for organizing and connecting knowledge, hold promise for enhancing clinical reasoning in the undergraduate medical curriculum. However, further research is required to ascertain if CMs facilitate clinical reasoning development in medical students transitioning from basic sciences to clinical practice. This study aims to delineate how CMs can facilitate clinical reasoning in patients with multimorbidity within undergraduate Family Medicine curricula, as perceived by students and tutors, and to understand the implementation process and resources required. This exploratory qualitative study formed a part of an action research project. While introducing an educational intervention to 5th-year medical students, we conducted a qualitative evaluation. Subsequently, semi-structured group interviews were conducted with students, and a focus group was conducted with tutors. Three main educational impacts were identified: integration of clinical information, support for patient management and care plan, and collaborative learning. Key aspects for successful CM implementation included clear instructions for map construction, using user-friendly software, allocating sufficient time for the task, encouraging group discussion of CMs, and incorporating tutor feedback. CMs are pedagogical tools that facilitate clinical information integration and support management and treatment plans, helping students better understand multimorbidity patients and promoting some components of clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education.

Clinical reasoning in real-world practice: a primer for medical trainees and practitioners.

Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill and defining characteristic of the medical profession, which relates to intricate cognitive and decision-making processes that are needed to solve real-world clinical problems. However, much of our current competency-based medical education systems have focused on imparting swathes of content knowledge and skills to our medical trainees, without an adequate emphasis on strengthening the cognitive schema and psychological processes that govern actual decision-making in clinical environments. Nonetheless, flawed clinical reasoning has serious repercussions on patient care, as it is associated with diagnostic errors, inappropriate investigations, and incongruent or suboptimal management plans that can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. In this article, we discuss the psychological constructs of clinical reasoning in the form of cognitive 'thought processing' models and real-world contextual or emotional influences on clinical decision-making. In addition, we propose practical strategies, including pedagogical development of a personal cognitive schema, mitigating strategies to combat cognitive bias and flawed reasoning, and emotional regulation and self-care techniques, which can be adopted in medical training to optimize physicians' clinical reasoning in real-world practice that effectively translates learnt knowledge and skill sets into good decisions and outcomes.

Beyond thinking fast and slow: Implications of a transtheoretical model of clinical reasoning and error on teaching, assessment, and research.

From dual process to a family of theories known collectively as situativity, both micro and macro theories of cognition inform our current understanding of clinical reasoning (CR) and error. CR is a complex process that occurs in a complex environment, and a nuanced, expansive, integrated model of these theories is necessary to fully understand how CR is performed in the present day and in the future. In this perspective, we present these individual theories along with figures and descriptive cases for purposes of comparison before exploring the implications of a transtheoretical model of these theories for teaching, assessment, and research in CR and error.

Programmatic Assessment of Clinical Reasoning: New Opportunities to Meet an Ongoing Challenge.

Issue: Clinical reasoning is essential to physicians' competence, yet assessment of clinical reasoning remains a significant challenge. Clinical reasoning is a complex, evolving, non-linear, context-driven, and content-specific construct which arguably cannot be assessed at one point in time or with a single method. This has posed challenges for educators for many decades, despite significant development of individual assessment methods. Evidence: Programmatic assessment is a systematic assessment approach that is gaining momentum across health professions education. Programmatic assessment, and in particular assessment for learning, is well-suited to address the challenges with clinical reasoning assessment. Several key principles of programmatic assessment are particularly well-aligned with developing a system to assess clinical reasoning: longitudinality, triangulation, use of a mix of assessment methods, proportionality, implementation of intermediate evaluations/reviews with faculty coaches, use of assessment for feedback, and increase in learners' agency. Repeated exposure and measurement are critical to develop a clinical reasoning assessment narrative, thus the assessment approach should optimally be longitudinal, providing multiple opportunities for growth and development. Triangulation provides a lens to assess the multidimensionality and contextuality of clinical reasoning and that of its different, yet related components, using a mix of different assessment methods. Proportionality ensures the richness of information on which to draw conclusions is commensurate with the stakes of the decision. Coaching facilitates the development of a feedback culture and allows to assess growth over time, while enhancing learners' agency. Implications: A programmatic assessment model of clinical reasoning that is developmentally oriented, optimizes learning though feedback and coaching, uses multiple assessment methods, and provides opportunity for meaningful triangulation of data can help address some of the challenges of clinical reasoning assessment.

Reliability, validity and acceptability of an online clinical reasoning simulator for medical students: An international pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning skills are essential for decision-making. Current assessment methods are limited when testing clinical reasoning and management of uncertainty. This study evaluates the reliability, validity and acceptability of Practicum Script, an online simulation-based programme, for developing medical students' clinical reasoning skills using real-life cases. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted an international, multicentre pilot study using 20 clinical cases with 2457 final-year medical students from 21 schools worldwide. Psychometric analysis was performed (n = 1502 students completing at least 80% of cases). Classical estimates of reliability for three test domains (hypothesis generation, hypothesis argumentation and knowledge application) were calculated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. Validity evidence was obtained by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement alignment (MA). Items from the knowledge application domain were analysed using cognitive diagnostic modelling (CDM). Acceptability was evaluated by an anonymous student survey. RESULTS: Reliability estimates were high with narrow confidence intervals. CFA revealed acceptable goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed three-factor model. CDM analysis demonstrated good absolute test fit and high classification accuracy estimates. Student survey responses showed high levels of acceptability. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that Practicum Script is a useful resource for strengthening students' clinical reasoning skills and ability to manage uncertainty.

Impact of reference panel composition on scores of script concordance test assessing basic nephrology knowledge in undergraduate medical education.

PURPOSE: In the assessment of basic medical knowledge, the composition of the reference panel between specialists and primary care (PC) physicians is a contentious issue. We assessed the effect of panel composition on the scores of undergraduate medical students in a script concordance test (SCT). METHODS: The scale of an SCT on basic nephrology knowledge was set by a panel of nephrologists or a mixed panel of nephrologists and PC physicians. The results of the SCTs were compared with ANOVA for repeated measurements. Concordance was assessed with Bland and Altman plots. RESULTS: Forty-five students completed the SCT. Their scores differed according to panel composition: 65.6 ± 9.73/100 points for nephrologists, and 70.27 ± 8.82 for the mixed panel, p < 0.001. Concordance between the scores was low with a bias of -4.27 ± 2.19 and a 95% limit of agreement of -8.96 to -0.38. Panel composition led to a change in the ranking of 71% of students (mean 3.6 ± 2.6 places). CONCLUSION: The composition of the reference panel, either specialist or mixed, for SCT assessment of basic knowledge has an impact on test results and student rankings.

Creating virtual patients using large language models: scalable, global, and low cost.

Virtual patients (VPs) have long been used to teach and assess clinical reasoning. VPs can be programmed to simulate authentic patient-clinician interactions and to reflect a variety of contextual permutations. However, their use has historically been limited by the high cost and logistical challenges of large-scale implementation. We describe a novel globally-accessible approach to develop low-cost VPs at scale using artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs). We leveraged OpenAI Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) to create and implement two interactive VPs, and created permutations that differed in contextual features. We used systematic prompt engineering to refine a prompt instructing ChatGPT to emulate the patient for a given case scenario, and then provide feedback on clinician performance. We implemented the prompts using GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4.0, and created a simple text-only interface using the OpenAI API. GPT-4.0 was far superior. We also conducted limited testing using another LLM (Anthropic Claude), with promising results. We provide the final prompt, case scenarios, and Python code. LLM-VPs represent a 'disruptive innovation' - an innovation that is unmistakably inferior to existing products but substantially more accessible (due to low cost, global reach, or ease of implementation) and thereby able to reach a previously underserved market. LLM-VPs will lay the foundation for global democratization via low-cost-low-risk scalable development of educational and clinical simulations. These powerful tools could revolutionize the teaching, assessment, and research of management reasoning, shared decision-making, and AI evaluation (e.g. 'software as a medical device' evaluations).

The relevance of the contribution of psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology and psychology of reasoning and decision making to nursing science: A discursive paper.

AIM: Patients' death or adverse events appear to be associated with poor healthcare decision-making. This might be due to an inability to have an adequate representation of the problem or of the connections among problem-related elements. Changing how a problem is formulated can reduce biases in clinical reasoning. The purpose of this article is to explore the possible contributions of psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology (PNEI) and psychology of reasoning and decision-making (PRDM) to support a new nursing theoretical frame. DESIGN: Discursive paper. METHOD: This article discusses the main assumptions about nursing and nurses' ability to face patient's problems, suggesting a new approach that integrates knowledge from PNEI and PRDM. While PNEI explains the complexity of systems, highlighting the importance of systems connections in affecting health, PRDM underlines the importance of the informative context in creating a mental representation of the problem. Furthermore, PRDM suggests the need to pay attention to information that is not immediately explicit and its connections. CONCLUSION: Nursing recognizes the patient-nurse relationship as the axiom that governs care. The integration of PNEI and PRDM in nursing theoretics allows the expansion of the axiom by providing essential elements to read a new type of relationship: the relationship among information. PNEI explains the relationships between biological systems and the psyche and between the whole individual and the environment; PRDM provides tools for the nurse's analytical thinking system to correctly process information and its connections. IMPACT ON NURSING PRACTICE: A theoretical renewal is mandatory to improve nursing reasoning and nursing priority identification. Integrating PNEI and PRDM into nursing theoretics will modify the way professionals approach patients, reducing cognitive biases and medical errors. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public involvement in the design or writing of this discursive article.

Pressure injury risk assessment and prescription of preventative interventions using a structured tool versus clinical judgement: An interrater agreement study.

AIM: To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement. DESIGN: Interrater agreement study. METHODS: Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. RESULTS: Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients. CONCLUSION: There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation. IMPACT: The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement in this study. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.

Clinical reasoning during dysphagia assessment and management in acute care: A longitudinal qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Competent clinical reasoning forms the foundation for effective and efficient clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and consequent dysphagia management decisions. While the nature of initial CSEs has been evaluated, it remains unclear how new information gathered by speech-language therapists (SLTs) throughout a patient's acute-care journey is integrated into their initial clinical reasoning and management processes and used to review and revise initial management recommendations. AIMS: To understand how SLTs' clinical reasoning and decision-making regarding dysphagia assessment and management evolve as patients transition through acute hospital care from referral to discharge. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A longitudinal, qualitative approach was employed to gather information from two SLTs who managed six patients at a metropolitan acute-care hospital. A retrospective 'think-aloud' protocol was utilized to prompt SLTs regarding their clinical reasoning and decision-making processes during initial and subsequent CSEs and patient interactions. Three types of concept maps were created based on these interviews: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. All concept maps were evaluated regarding their overall structure, facts gathered, types of reasoning engaged in (inductive versus deductive), types of hypotheses generated, and the diagnosis and management recommendations made following initial CSE and during subsequent dysphagia management. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Initial CSEs involved a rich process of fact-gathering, that was predominantly led by inductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) and some application of deductive reasoning (hypothesis testing), with the primary aims of determining the presence of dysphagia and identifying the safest diet and fluid recommendations. During follow-up assessments, SLTs engaged in increasingly more deductive testing of initial hypotheses, including fact-gathering aimed at determining the tolerance of current diet and fluid recommendations or the suitability for diet and/or fluid upgrade and less inductive reasoning. Consistent with this aim, SLTs' hypotheses were focused primarily on airway protection and medical status during the follow-up phase. Overall, both initial and follow-up swallowing assessments were targeted primarily at identifying suitable management recommendations, and less so on identifying and formulating diagnoses. None of the patients presented with adverse respiratory and/or swallowing outcomes during admission and following discharge from speech pathology. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Swallowing assessment and management across the acute-care journey was observed as a high-quality, patient-centred process characterized by iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning. This approach appears to maximize efficiency without compromising the quality of care. The outcomes of this research encourage further investigation and translation to tertiary and post-professional education contexts as a clear understanding of the processes involved in reaching diagnoses and management recommendations can inform career-long refinement of clinical skills. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject SLTs' clinical reasoning processes during initial CSE employ iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning, reflecting a patient-centred assessment process. To date it is unknown how SLTs engage in clinical reasoning during follow-up assessments of swallowing function, how they assess the appropriateness of initial management recommendations and how this relates to patient outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge Our longitudinal evaluation of clinical reasoning and decision-making patterns related to swallowing management in acute care demonstrated that SLTs tailored their processes to each patient's presentation. There was an emphasis on monitoring the suitability of the initial management recommendations and the potential for upgrade of diet or compensatory swallowing strategies. The iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning reflect efficient decision-making processes that maintain high-quality clinical care within the acute environment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Employing efficient and high-quality clinical reasoning is a hallmark of good dysphagia practice in maximizing positive patient outcomes. Developing approaches to understanding and making explicit clinical reasoning processes of experienced clinicians may assist SLTs of all developmental stages to provide high standards of care.

Clinical reasoning skill of nurses working in teaching medical centers in dealing with practical scenarios of King's model concepts.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to determine clinical reasoning of nurses working in teaching medical centers in dealing with practical scenarios of King's concepts. METHODS: The study population in this cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study comprised 133 nurses. Data were collected using scenarios based on the King's model. Data were analyzed in SPSS-16. FINDINGS: Mean age of the participating nurses was 27.71 ± 8.1 years.The clinical reasoning score was less than average in most participating nurses, and had a significant relationship with education(P < 0.05), service ward(P < 0.001)and organizational position(P < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis of factors relating to clinical reasoning, higher education level (B = 9.5, P = 0.018) and organizational position (B = 4.3, P = 0.017) were predictors of clinical reasoning score. DISCUSSION: Existing nursing models such as King's, which is closely related to clinical reasoning, can be used more in educational and clinical systems, and as a clinical guide for promoting the clinical reasoning of nurses and students.

Current status and ongoing needs for the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning - an international mixed-methods study from the students` and teachers` perspective.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a crucial ability that can prevent errors in patient care. Despite its important role, CR is often not taught explicitly and, even when it is taught, typically not all aspects of this ability are addressed in health professions education. Recent research has shown the need for explicit teaching of CR for both students and teachers. To further develop the teaching and learning of CR we need to improve the understanding of students' and teachers' needs regarding content as well as teaching and assessment methods for a student and trainer CR curriculum. METHODS: Parallel mixed-methods design that used web-surveys and semi-structured interviews to gather data from both students (nsurvey = 100; ninterviews = 13) and teachers (nsurvey = 112; ninterviews = 28). The interviews and surveys contained similar questions to allow for triangulation of the results. This study was conducted as part of the EU-funded project DID-ACT ( https://did-act.eu ). RESULTS: Both the surveys and interview data emphasized the need for content in a clinical reasoning (CR) curriculum such as "gathering, interpreting and synthesizing patient information", "generating differential diagnoses", "developing a diagnostic and a treatment plan" and "collaborative and interprofessional aspects of CR". There was high agreement that case-based learning and simulations are most useful for teaching CR. Clinical and oral examinations were favored for the assessment of CR. The preferred format for a train-the-trainer (TTT)-course was blended learning. There was also some agreement between the survey and interview participants regarding contents of a TTT-course (e.g. teaching and assessment methods for CR). The interviewees placed special importance on interprofessional aspects also for the TTT-course. CONCLUSIONS: We found some consensus on needed content, teaching and assessment methods for a student and TTT-course in CR. Future research could investigate the effects of CR curricula on desired outcomes, such as patient care.

Evaluating clinical reasoning in first year DPT students using a script concordance test.

BACKGROUND: A script concordance test (SCT) provides a series of clinical vignettes to assess clinical reasoning in uncertainty. Appraised throughout health education literature, SCTs are cognitive assessments of clinical reasoning, though their use in Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) entry-level education has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to develop and explore the reliability and validity of a SCT for first year DPT students. METHODS: The SCT was developed and implemented over four phases. During phases one and two, DPT program faculty consulted on course content from the first-year curriculum. Thirty clinical vignettes with three follow-up questions each were constructed. The SCT was pilot tested with five clinicians in phase three to assess question clarity. During phase four, the SCT was administered to students and a reference panel via Qualtrics. First year DPT students (n = 44) and reference panel physical therapists with at least two years of experience and advanced certification (n = 15) completed the SCT. Internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach's Alpha. Differences between student and reference panel percent-correct scores were analyzed with a t-test. Relationships between student SCT scores and academic records were explored with Spearman's Rho. RESULTS: The SCT had an internal consistency of 0.74. A significant difference in scores was found between the students [mean 58.5 (+/-5.31)] and reference panel [65.8 (+/-4.88), p < .01]. No significant correlations between student SCT scores and academic records were found. CONCLUSIONS: The developed SCT was reliable and demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency among test items. The SCT successfully differentiated between groups, with the reference panel demonstrating statistically significant higher percent-correct scores compared to students. SCTs may provide means to measure clinical reasoning in DPT students and lead to novel pedagogical approaches to enhance clinical reasoning.

Virtual patients versus standardized patients for improving clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology residents. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: History taking and clinical reasoning are important skills that require knowledge, cognition and meta-cognition. It is important that a trainee must experience multiple encounters with different patients to practice these skills. However, patient safety is also important, and trainees are not allowed to handle critically ill patients. To address this issue, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the effectiveness of using Virtual Patients (VP) versus Standardized Patients (SP) in acquiring clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology postgraduate residents. METHODS: Postgraduate residents from two hospitals in Lahore, Pakistan, were randomized to either the VP group or the SP group and were exposed to clinical reasoning exercise via the VP or SP for 30 min after the pretest. This was followed by a posttest. One month after this activity, a follow-up posttest was conducted. The data were collected and analysed using IBM-SPSS version 25. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to track the effect of learning skills over time. RESULTS: The mean age of the residents was 28.5 ± 3 years. The male to female ratio was 1:1.1. For the SP group, the mean scores were 12.6 ± 3.08, 16.39 ± 3.01 and 15.39 ± 2.95, and for the VP group, the mean scores were 12.7 ± 3.84, 16.30 ± 3.19 and 15.65 ± 3.18 for the pretest, posttest and follow-up posttest, respectively (p value < 0.00). However, the difference between the VP and SP groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.896). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the VP and SP groups regarding the retention of clinical reasoning ability. In terms of learning gain, compared with the VP group, the SP group had a score of 51.46% immediately after clinical reasoning exercise as compared to VP group, in which it was 49.1%. After one month, it was 38.01 in SP and 40.12% in VP group. CONCLUSION: VPs can be used for learning clinical reasoning skills in postgraduate ophthalmology residents in a safe environment. These devices can be used repeatedly without any risk to the real patient. Although similarly useful, SP is limited by its nonavailability for repeated exercises.