Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 13

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1018/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 12

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1017/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 11

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1016/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 10

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1015/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 9

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1014/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 8

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1013/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 7

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1012/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 6

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1011/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 5

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1010/thumbnail.jpg

Medical School Donor Recognition Reception Photo 4

http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/com_images/1009/thumbnail.jpg

Clinical reasoning: The relative contribution of identification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the types of errors in clinical reasoning that contribute to poor diagnostic performance at different levels of medical training and experience. Three cohorts of subjects, second- and fourth- (final) year medical students and a group of general practitioners, completed a set of clinical reasoning problems. The responses of those whose scores fell below the 25th centile were analysed to establish the stage of the clinical reasoning process - identification of relevant information, interpretation or hypothesis generation - at which most errors occurred and whether this was dependent on problem difficulty and level of medical experience. Results indicate that hypothesis errors decrease as expertise increases but that identification and interpretation errors increase. This may be due to inappropriate use of pattern recognition or to failure of the knowledge base. Furthermore, although hypothesis errors increased in line with problem difficulty, identification and interpretation errors decreased. A possible explanation is that as problem difficulty increases, subjects at all levels of expertise are less able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant clinical features and so give equal consideration to all information contained within a case. It is concluded that the development of clinical reasoning in medical students throughout the course of their pre-clinical and clinical education may be enhanced by both an analysis of the clinical reasoning process and a specific focus on each of the stages at which errors commonly occur.

Assessing clinical reasoning: A method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum

The aim of this study was to develop and trial a method to monitor the evolution of clinical reasoning in a PBL curriculum that is suitable for use in a large medical school. Termed Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs), it is based on the notion that clinical reasoning is dependent on the identification and correct interpretation of certain critical clinical features. Each problem consists of a clinical scenario comprising presentation, history and physical examination. Based on this information, subjects are asked to nominate the two most likely diagnoses and to list the clinical features that they considered in formulating their diagnoses, indicating whether these features supported or opposed the nominated diagnoses. Students at different levels of medical training completed a set of 10 CRPs as well as the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess reasoning style. Responses were scored against those of a reference group of general practitioners. Results indicate that the CRPs are an easily administered, reliable and valid assessment of clinical reasoning, able to successfully monitor its development throughout medical training. Consequently, they can be employed to assess clinical reasoning skill in individual students and to evaluate the success of undergraduate medical schools in providing effective tuition in clinical reasoning.