Constanze Richters, Ralf Schmidmaier, Vitaliy Popov, Johann Schredelseker, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer
{"title":"Intervention skills - a neglected field of research in medical education and beyond.","authors":"Constanze Richters, Ralf Schmidmaier, Vitaliy Popov, Johann Schredelseker, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer","doi":"10.3205/zma001703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Intervention</i> reasoning as a critical component of clinical reasoning has been understudied in medical education in contrast to the well-established field of diagnostic reasoning. This resonates in a lack of comprehensive understanding of the cognitive processes involved and a deficit in research to promote intervention skills in future clinicians. In this commentary, we present a conceptual framework for intervention reasoning that includes four phases: generating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating interventions. The conceptualization highlights cognitive processes such as developing interventions based on a patient's diagnosis and signs and symptoms; selecting the most appropriate option by contrasting, prioritizing, and evaluating interventions in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and the patient's context-specific needs; and predicting patient outcomes within so-called \"developmental corridors\" to adjust treatments accordingly. In addition to these cognitive processes, interventions require collaborative activities, such as sharing information with other care providers, distributing roles among care teams, or acting together. Future research should validate the proposed framework, examine the impact of intervention reasoning on clinical outcomes, and identify effective training methods (e.g., simulation and AI-based approaches). In addition, it would be valuable to explore the transferability and generalizability of the model to other areas of health education and contexts outside of health education.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"41 4","pages":"Doc48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Intervention reasoning as a critical component of clinical reasoning has been understudied in medical education in contrast to the well-established field of diagnostic reasoning. This resonates in a lack of comprehensive understanding of the cognitive processes involved and a deficit in research to promote intervention skills in future clinicians. In this commentary, we present a conceptual framework for intervention reasoning that includes four phases: generating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating interventions. The conceptualization highlights cognitive processes such as developing interventions based on a patient's diagnosis and signs and symptoms; selecting the most appropriate option by contrasting, prioritizing, and evaluating interventions in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and the patient's context-specific needs; and predicting patient outcomes within so-called "developmental corridors" to adjust treatments accordingly. In addition to these cognitive processes, interventions require collaborative activities, such as sharing information with other care providers, distributing roles among care teams, or acting together. Future research should validate the proposed framework, examine the impact of intervention reasoning on clinical outcomes, and identify effective training methods (e.g., simulation and AI-based approaches). In addition, it would be valuable to explore the transferability and generalizability of the model to other areas of health education and contexts outside of health education.
期刊介绍:
GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.