南非大学健康与康复科学专业本科生和临床教育工作者对临床推理的理解:对教学实践的启示

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES African Journal of Health Professions Education Pub Date : 2021-12-31 DOI:10.7196/ajhpe.2021.v13i4.1293
H. Talberg, F. Camroodien-Surve, S. Amosun
{"title":"南非大学健康与康复科学专业本科生和临床教育工作者对临床推理的理解:对教学实践的启示","authors":"H. Talberg, F. Camroodien-Surve, S. Amosun","doi":"10.7196/ajhpe.2021.v13i4.1293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Clinical reasoning (CR) is a skill acquired by students under supervision of clinical educators (CEs) when transitioning from classroom to clinical practice to optimise patient care. However, intra- and inter-professional differences in the definition and facilitation of CR have been reported. At the University of Cape Town, a teaching development grant was obtained and used for a staff development initiative aimed at improving the CR skills of undergraduate health and rehabilitation students. Objectives. To gain insight into the understanding of CR among CEs and a cohort of third-year students across 4 professional programmes, using an interpretive approach. Methods. The CEs responsible for third-year supervision (n=45) were invited to take part in a self-developed electronic survey and an initial workshop that explored their understanding of CR. The qualitative survey data, as well as workshop feedback and discussion, were analysed. Students’ understanding was explored during focus group discussions. Results. There were areas of commonality and differences among CEs. They agreed on a cyclical step-like process to CR and the need to cue students to develop this expertise in clinical settings. The approach of CEs in occupational therapy was client focused; physiotherapy CEs described a higher- order thinking; and audiology and speech and language pathology CEs described a structured procedure informed by evidence. Students were unable to conceptualise a complete picture to reasoning and decision-making. Conclusion. The difference between students’ understanding of CR and their poor awareness of strategies employed by CEs to facilitate reasoning could account for difficulties in transitioning from classroom to practice. This scenario suggests that divisions need to look at creating more purposeful strategies to teach students about the CR process and how the facilitation may occur within the clinical setting.","PeriodicalId":43683,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding of clinical reasoning by undergraduate students and clinical educators in health and rehabilitation sciences at a South African University: The implications for teaching practice\",\"authors\":\"H. Talberg, F. Camroodien-Surve, S. Amosun\",\"doi\":\"10.7196/ajhpe.2021.v13i4.1293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Clinical reasoning (CR) is a skill acquired by students under supervision of clinical educators (CEs) when transitioning from classroom to clinical practice to optimise patient care. However, intra- and inter-professional differences in the definition and facilitation of CR have been reported. At the University of Cape Town, a teaching development grant was obtained and used for a staff development initiative aimed at improving the CR skills of undergraduate health and rehabilitation students. Objectives. To gain insight into the understanding of CR among CEs and a cohort of third-year students across 4 professional programmes, using an interpretive approach. Methods. The CEs responsible for third-year supervision (n=45) were invited to take part in a self-developed electronic survey and an initial workshop that explored their understanding of CR. The qualitative survey data, as well as workshop feedback and discussion, were analysed. Students’ understanding was explored during focus group discussions. Results. There were areas of commonality and differences among CEs. They agreed on a cyclical step-like process to CR and the need to cue students to develop this expertise in clinical settings. The approach of CEs in occupational therapy was client focused; physiotherapy CEs described a higher- order thinking; and audiology and speech and language pathology CEs described a structured procedure informed by evidence. Students were unable to conceptualise a complete picture to reasoning and decision-making. Conclusion. The difference between students’ understanding of CR and their poor awareness of strategies employed by CEs to facilitate reasoning could account for difficulties in transitioning from classroom to practice. This scenario suggests that divisions need to look at creating more purposeful strategies to teach students about the CR process and how the facilitation may occur within the clinical setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Health Professions Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Health Professions Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2021.v13i4.1293\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2021.v13i4.1293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景。临床推理(CR)是学生在临床教育工作者(ce)的监督下获得的技能,当从课堂过渡到临床实践,以优化患者护理。然而,专业内部和专业间在CR的定义和促进方面存在差异。在开普敦大学,获得了一笔教学发展补助金,用于一项工作人员发展倡议,目的是提高本科保健和康复专业学生的社会责任技能。目标。采用解释性方法,深入了解ce和4个专业项目的三年级学生对企业社会责任的理解。方法。我们邀请负责第三年督导的社会服务中心(n=45)参加了一项自行开发的电子调查和一个初步研讨会,以探讨他们对社会责任的理解。我们分析了定性调查数据以及研讨会的反馈和讨论。在焦点小组讨论中探讨学生的理解。结果。ce之间既有共性,也有差异。他们一致认为CR是一个周期性的阶梯式过程,并且需要提示学生在临床环境中发展这种专业知识。ce在职业治疗中的方法是以病人为中心的;物理治疗ce描述了高阶思维;听力学、言语和语言病理学ce描述了一个有证据支持的结构化程序。学生们无法将一个完整的画面概念化以进行推理和决策。结论。学生对CR的理解存在差异,而他们对ce用于促进推理的策略认识不足,这可以解释从课堂向实践过渡的困难。这种情况表明,各部门需要考虑制定更有目的的策略,以教授学生CR过程以及如何在临床环境中实现促进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Understanding of clinical reasoning by undergraduate students and clinical educators in health and rehabilitation sciences at a South African University: The implications for teaching practice
Background. Clinical reasoning (CR) is a skill acquired by students under supervision of clinical educators (CEs) when transitioning from classroom to clinical practice to optimise patient care. However, intra- and inter-professional differences in the definition and facilitation of CR have been reported. At the University of Cape Town, a teaching development grant was obtained and used for a staff development initiative aimed at improving the CR skills of undergraduate health and rehabilitation students. Objectives. To gain insight into the understanding of CR among CEs and a cohort of third-year students across 4 professional programmes, using an interpretive approach. Methods. The CEs responsible for third-year supervision (n=45) were invited to take part in a self-developed electronic survey and an initial workshop that explored their understanding of CR. The qualitative survey data, as well as workshop feedback and discussion, were analysed. Students’ understanding was explored during focus group discussions. Results. There were areas of commonality and differences among CEs. They agreed on a cyclical step-like process to CR and the need to cue students to develop this expertise in clinical settings. The approach of CEs in occupational therapy was client focused; physiotherapy CEs described a higher- order thinking; and audiology and speech and language pathology CEs described a structured procedure informed by evidence. Students were unable to conceptualise a complete picture to reasoning and decision-making. Conclusion. The difference between students’ understanding of CR and their poor awareness of strategies employed by CEs to facilitate reasoning could account for difficulties in transitioning from classroom to practice. This scenario suggests that divisions need to look at creating more purposeful strategies to teach students about the CR process and how the facilitation may occur within the clinical setting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Journal of Health Professions Education
African Journal of Health Professions Education HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a decentralised clinical training programme (DCTP) at a university of technology in South Africa: Implications for health science education and clinical practice How do medical students without formal training in empathy development understand empathy in the context of patient care? Perceptions of staff and students of the role of clinical simulation on students’ ability to perform academically Surgical videos used for face-to-face and virtual oral assessment: experiences of examiners and trainees. Exploring student midwives’ experiences regarding completion of the midwifery register at a nursing college in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa
×
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