Exploring Differences in Clinical Decisions Between Medical Students and Expert Clinicians.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2024-12-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S492302
Marcos Rojas, Argenta Price, Candice Jeehae Kim, Sharon F Chen, Kathleen Gutierrez, Carl Wieman, Shima Salehi
{"title":"Exploring Differences in Clinical Decisions Between Medical Students and Expert Clinicians.","authors":"Marcos Rojas, Argenta Price, Candice Jeehae Kim, Sharon F Chen, Kathleen Gutierrez, Carl Wieman, Shima Salehi","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S492302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Numerous challenges exist in effectively bridging theory and practice in the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, despite an abundance of theoretical models. This study compares clinical reasoning practices and decisions between medical students and expert clinicians using a problem-solving framework from the learning sciences, which identifies clinical reasoning as distinct, observable actions in clinical case solving. We examined students at various training stages against expert clinicians to address the research question: How do expert clinicians and medical students differ in their practices and decisions during the diagnostic process?.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a questionnaire about a pediatric infectious disease case based on the problem-solving framework from the learning sciences to probe clinical reasoning decisions. The questionnaire had four sections: medical history, physical examination, medical tests, and working diagnosis. The questionnaire was administered at Stanford University between January 2019 and June 2023 to collect data from 10 experts and 74 medical students. We recruited participants through maximum variation sampling. We applied deductive content analysis to systematically code responses to identify patterns in the execution of the practices and decisions across the questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This research introduces a highly detailed, empirically developed framework that holds potential to bridge theory and practice, offering practical insights for medical instructors in teaching clinical reasoning to students across various stages of their training. This framework involves nine practices, with a total of twenty-nine decisions that need to be made when carrying out these practices. Differences between experts and students centered on ten decisions across the practices: Differential diagnosis formulation, Diagnostic plan and execution, Clinical data reassessment, and Clinical solution review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We were able to identify nuanced differences in clinical reasoning between students and expert physicians under one comprehensive problem-solving framework from the learning sciences. Identifying key clinical reasoning practices and decision differences could help develop targeted instructional materials and assessment tools, aiding instructors in fostering clinical reasoning in students.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"15 ","pages":"1285-1297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11681814/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S492302","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

Background: Numerous challenges exist in effectively bridging theory and practice in the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, despite an abundance of theoretical models. This study compares clinical reasoning practices and decisions between medical students and expert clinicians using a problem-solving framework from the learning sciences, which identifies clinical reasoning as distinct, observable actions in clinical case solving. We examined students at various training stages against expert clinicians to address the research question: How do expert clinicians and medical students differ in their practices and decisions during the diagnostic process?.

Methods: We developed a questionnaire about a pediatric infectious disease case based on the problem-solving framework from the learning sciences to probe clinical reasoning decisions. The questionnaire had four sections: medical history, physical examination, medical tests, and working diagnosis. The questionnaire was administered at Stanford University between January 2019 and June 2023 to collect data from 10 experts and 74 medical students. We recruited participants through maximum variation sampling. We applied deductive content analysis to systematically code responses to identify patterns in the execution of the practices and decisions across the questionnaire.

Results: This research introduces a highly detailed, empirically developed framework that holds potential to bridge theory and practice, offering practical insights for medical instructors in teaching clinical reasoning to students across various stages of their training. This framework involves nine practices, with a total of twenty-nine decisions that need to be made when carrying out these practices. Differences between experts and students centered on ten decisions across the practices: Differential diagnosis formulation, Diagnostic plan and execution, Clinical data reassessment, and Clinical solution review.

Conclusion: We were able to identify nuanced differences in clinical reasoning between students and expert physicians under one comprehensive problem-solving framework from the learning sciences. Identifying key clinical reasoning practices and decision differences could help develop targeted instructional materials and assessment tools, aiding instructors in fostering clinical reasoning in students.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学生与临床专家在临床决策上的差异探讨
背景:尽管有大量的理论模型,但在临床推理的教学和评估中,有效地将理论与实践联系起来存在许多挑战。本研究比较了医学生和专家临床医生之间的临床推理实践和决策,使用了学习科学的问题解决框架,该框架将临床推理确定为临床病例解决中独特的、可观察的行动。我们检查了不同培训阶段的学生与专家临床医生,以解决研究问题:在诊断过程中,专家临床医生和医学生在实践和决策方面有何不同?方法:基于学习科学的问题解决框架,对一例儿童传染病病例进行问卷调查,探讨临床推理决策。问卷有四个部分:病史、体格检查、医学检查和工作诊断。该问卷于2019年1月至2023年6月在斯坦福大学进行,收集了10名专家和74名医学生的数据。我们通过最大变异抽样来招募参与者。我们将演绎内容分析应用于系统的代码响应,以识别在整个问卷中执行实践和决策的模式。结果:本研究介绍了一个非常详细的、经验开发的框架,它具有桥梁理论和实践的潜力,为医学教师在不同阶段向学生教授临床推理提供了实用的见解。该框架涉及9个实践,在执行这些实践时总共需要做出29个决策。专家和学生之间的差异集中在实践中的十个决策上:鉴别诊断的制定、诊断计划和执行、临床数据重新评估和临床解决方案审查。结论:我们能够在学习科学的一个综合问题解决框架下识别学生和专家医生在临床推理方面的细微差异。识别关键的临床推理实践和决策差异可以帮助开发有针对性的教学材料和评估工具,帮助教师培养学生的临床推理能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of Simulation-Based Surgical Training in Laparoscopy on Satisfaction Level and Proficiency in Surgical Skills. Challenges and Difficulties During the Nursing Internship Program Using 5 Domains: A Cross-Sectional Study. Application of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Medical Examinations. Predictive Validity of Preclerkship Performance Metrics on USMLE Step 2 CK Outcomes in the Step 1 Pass/Fail Era. Career Planning in Medical Students Rotating Through Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Social Support, and Personal Participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1