Assessing clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical students during history taking with an empirically derived scale for clinical reasoning indicators.
Assessment
Clinical reasoning
Competence
History taking
Medical education
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2020
19 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
28
11
2019
accepted:
28
09
2020
entrez:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
21
10
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The clinical reasoning process, which requires biomedical knowledge, knowledge about problem-solving strategies, and knowledge about reasons for diagnostic procedures, is a key element of physicians' daily practice but difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to empirically develop a Clinical Reasoning Indicators-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) and to assess the clinical reasoning ability of advanced medical students during a simulation involving history taking. The Clinical Reasoning Indictors-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) including a 5-point Likert scale for assessment was designed from clinical reasoning indicators identified in a qualitative study in 2017. To assess indicators of clinical reasoning ability, 65 advanced medical students (semester 10, n = 25 versus final year, n = 40) from three medical schools participated in a 360-degree competence assessment in the role of beginning residents during a simulated first workday in hospital. This assessment included a consultation hour with five simulated patients which was videotaped. Videos of 325 patient consultations were assessed using the CRI-HT-S. A factor analysis was conducted and the students' results were compared according to their advancement in undergraduate medical training. The clinical reasoning indicators of the CRI-HT-S loaded on three factors relevant for clinical reasoning: 1) focusing questions, 2) creating context, and 3) securing information. Students reached significantly different scores (p < .001) for the three factors (factor 1: 4.07 ± .47, factor 2: 3.72 ± .43, factor 3: 2.79 ± .83). Students in semester 10 reached significantly lower scores for factor 3 than students in their final year (p < .05). The newly developed CRI-HT-S worked well for quantitative assessment of clinical reasoning indicators during history taking. Its three-factored structure helped to explore different aspects of clinical reasoning. Whether the CRI-HT-S has the potential to be used as a scale in objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) or in workplace-based assessments of clinical reasoning has to be investigated in further studies with larger student cohorts.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The clinical reasoning process, which requires biomedical knowledge, knowledge about problem-solving strategies, and knowledge about reasons for diagnostic procedures, is a key element of physicians' daily practice but difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to empirically develop a Clinical Reasoning Indicators-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) and to assess the clinical reasoning ability of advanced medical students during a simulation involving history taking.
METHODS
METHODS
The Clinical Reasoning Indictors-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) including a 5-point Likert scale for assessment was designed from clinical reasoning indicators identified in a qualitative study in 2017. To assess indicators of clinical reasoning ability, 65 advanced medical students (semester 10, n = 25 versus final year, n = 40) from three medical schools participated in a 360-degree competence assessment in the role of beginning residents during a simulated first workday in hospital. This assessment included a consultation hour with five simulated patients which was videotaped. Videos of 325 patient consultations were assessed using the CRI-HT-S. A factor analysis was conducted and the students' results were compared according to their advancement in undergraduate medical training.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The clinical reasoning indicators of the CRI-HT-S loaded on three factors relevant for clinical reasoning: 1) focusing questions, 2) creating context, and 3) securing information. Students reached significantly different scores (p < .001) for the three factors (factor 1: 4.07 ± .47, factor 2: 3.72 ± .43, factor 3: 2.79 ± .83). Students in semester 10 reached significantly lower scores for factor 3 than students in their final year (p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The newly developed CRI-HT-S worked well for quantitative assessment of clinical reasoning indicators during history taking. Its three-factored structure helped to explore different aspects of clinical reasoning. Whether the CRI-HT-S has the potential to be used as a scale in objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) or in workplace-based assessments of clinical reasoning has to be investigated in further studies with larger student cohorts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33076879
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02260-9
pii: 10.1186/s12909-020-02260-9
pmc: PMC7574202
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
368Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 01PK1501A/B/C
Références
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Aug;18(3):375-96
pubmed: 22592323
Diagnosis (Berl). 2019 Aug 27;6(3):259-268
pubmed: 30877781
Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):802-9
pubmed: 12915371
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jan 7;20(1):6
pubmed: 31910843
West J Emerg Med. 2017 Jan;18(1):4-7
pubmed: 28115999
N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2217-25
pubmed: 17124019
Med Educ. 2011 Oct;45(10):1048-60
pubmed: 21916943
Acad Med. 1991 Sep;66(9 Suppl):S70-2
pubmed: 1930535
Med Educ. 2014 Nov;48(11):1055-68
pubmed: 25307633
Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1178-84
pubmed: 18045370
Acad Med. 2010 Oct;85(10 Suppl):S25-8
pubmed: 20881697
GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Nov 15;34(5):Doc66
pubmed: 29226234
West J Med. 1992 Feb;156(2):163-5
pubmed: 1536065
Am J Med. 2017 Jun;130(6):629-634
pubmed: 28238695
Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1146-51
pubmed: 18045366
BMC Med Educ. 2004 Jan 09;4:1
pubmed: 14713320
Lancet. 1976 Sep 11;2(7985):556-8
pubmed: 60632
Med Educ. 1990 Mar;24(2):129-36
pubmed: 2319971
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Mar;17(1):65-79
pubmed: 21505841
Med Educ. 2003 Aug;37(8):695-703
pubmed: 12895249
Med Educ. 2011 Sep;45(9):927-38
pubmed: 21848721
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Dec;19(12):1454-61
pubmed: 23279251
Med Educ. 1998 May;32(3):283-8
pubmed: 9743783
Int J Med Educ. 2017 May 30;8:205-206
pubmed: 28574377
Int J Med Educ. 2018 Feb 09;9:35-41
pubmed: 29428911
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2013 Oct;43(9):248-57
pubmed: 24070582
Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421-44
pubmed: 22578051
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Aug 29;17(1):147
pubmed: 28851340
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Sep 7;17(1):154
pubmed: 28882189
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1058-60
pubmed: 23899852
Med Educ. 2019 Jul;53(7):710-722
pubmed: 30779204