Improving Critical Thinking and Clinical Reasoning With a Continuing Education Course

Background: Continuing education courses related to critical thinking and clinical reasoning are needed to improve the accuracy of diagnosis. Method: This study evaluated a 4-day, 16-hour continuing education course conducted in Brazil. Thirty-nine nurses completed a pretest and a posttest consisting of two written case studies designed to measure the accuracy of nurses` diagnoses. Results: There were significant differences in accuracy from pretest to posttest for case 1 (p = .008) and case 2 (p = .042) and overall (p = .001). Conclusion: Continuing education courses should be implemented to improve the accuracy of nurses` diagnoses. J Contin Educ Nurs 2009;40(3):121-127.

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.

Clinical reasoning in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review

Abstract OBJECTIVE This study aimed at analyzing the current state of knowledge on clinical reasoning in undergraduate nursing education. METHODS A systematic scoping review through a search strategy applied to the MEDLINE database, and an analysis of the material recovered by extracting data done by two independent reviewers. The extracted data were analyzed and synthesized in a narrative manner. RESULTS From the 1380 citations retrieved in the search, 23 were kept for review and their contents were summarized into five categories: 1) the experience of developing critical thinking/clinical reasoning/decision-making process; 2) teaching strategies related to the development of critical thinking/clinical reasoning/decision-making process; 3) measurement of variables related to the critical thinking/clinical reasoning/decision-making process; 4) relationship of variables involved in the critical thinking/clinical reasoning/decision-making process; and 5) theoretical development models of critical thinking/clinical reasoning/decision-making process for students. CONCLUSION The biggest challenge for developing knowledge on teaching clinical reasoning seems to be finding consistency between theoretical perspectives on the development of clinical reasoning and methodologies, methods, and procedures in research initiatives in this field.

Expert clinical reasoning and pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients is challenging, because nurses need to decode pain behaviour, interpret pain scores, and make appropriate decisions. This clinical reasoning process is inherent to advanced nursing practice, but is poorly understood. A better understanding of this process could contribute to improved pain assessment and management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the indicators that influence expert nurses' clinical reasoning when assessing pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. METHODS: This descriptive observational study was conducted in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral hospital in Western Switzerland. A purposive sample of expert nurses, caring for nonverbal ventilated patients who received sedation and analgesia, were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected in "real life" using recorded think-aloud combined with direct non-participant observation and brief interviews. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses using a theoretical framework related to clinical reasoning and pain. RESULTS: Seven expert nurses with an average of 7.85 (±3.1) years of critical care experience participated in the study. The patients had respiratory distress (n=2), cardiac arrest (n=2), sub-arachnoid bleeding (n=1), and multi-trauma (n=2). A total of 1344 quotes in five categories were identified. Patients' physiological stability was the principal indicator for making decision in relation to pain management. Results also showed that it is a permanent challenge for nurses to discriminate situations requiring sedation from situations requiring analgesia. Expert nurses mainly used working knowledge and patterns to anticipate and prevent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patient's clinical condition is important for making decision about pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. The concept of pain cannot be assessed in isolation and its assessment should take the patient's clinical stability and sedation into account. Further research is warranted to confirm these results.

Clinical reasoning of medical students in a public university in Brazil

The aim of this research was to understand the reasoning developed by medical students in a public university in Brazil. This research on education included semi-structured interviews and film recordings of interns discussing 10 clinical cases. A sample of 16 interns analyzed cases presented on a notebook computer with a webcam. They were instructed to verbalize all their thoughts on the procedures they would use. The film recordings and transcripts of the interviews were analyzed. Quantitative data was evaluated using Yates' chi-squared test and speech analysis was used to evaluate the transcripts. The theme worked on in the practice of reasoning was: the student's perceptions of their clinical practice. Of the 160 diagnoses, 57% were done with analytical reasoning and 43% with non-analytical reasoning. The hypothetical deductive method was employed by 31% of the interns and the inductive method was employed by 69%. The diagnostic accuracy was 81% correct for easy cases and 85% correct for difficult cases. We observed two empirical categories: the cognitive universe of the student and the patient's context.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: The design of Virtual Patients (VPs) is essential. So far there are no validated evaluation instruments for VP design published. Summary of work: We examined three sources of validity evidence of an instrument to be filled out by students aimed at measuring the quality of VPs with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning: (1) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (2) Response process was explored in think aloud pilot studies with students and content analysis of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (3) Internal structure was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using 2547 student evaluations and reliability was examined utilizing generalizability analysis. Summary of results: Content analysis was supported by theory underlying Gruppen and Frohna’s clinical reasoning model on which the instrument is based and an international VP expert team. The pilot study and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. The CFA indicated that a three factor model comprising 6 items showed a good fit with the data. Alpha coefficients per factor were 0,74 - 0,82. The findings of the generalizability studies indicated that 40-200 student responses are needed in order to obtain reliable data on one VP. Conclusions: The described instrument has the potential to provide faculty with reliable and valid information about VP design. Take-home messages: We present a short instrument which can be of help in evaluating the design of VPs.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for VP design are available. Aims: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of VP design by learners. Methods: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (ii) The response process was explored in think-aloud pilot studies with medical students and in content analyses of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (iii) Internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and inter-rater reliability by generalizability analysis. Results: Content analysis was reasonably supported by the theoretical foundation and the VP expert team. The think-aloud studies and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. In the EFA, using 2547 student evaluations of a total of 78 VPs, a three-factor model showed a reasonable fit with the data. At least 200 student responses are needed to obtain a reliable evaluation of a VP on all three factors. Conclusion: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about VP design, provided that many responses per VP are available.

Computer-based summative assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-method comparison of key feature problems with case-based multiple choice questions

Background: It is yet unclear if there are differences between using electronic key feature problems (KFPs) or electronic case-based multiple choice questions (cbMCQ) for the assessment of clinical decision making. Summary of Work: Fifth year medical students were exposed to clerkships which ended with a summative exam. Assessment of knowledge per exam was done by 6-9 KFPs, 9-20 cbMCQ and 9-28 MC questions. Each KFP consisted of a case vignette and three key features (KF) using “long menu” as question format. We sought students’ perceptions of the KFPs and cbMCQs in focus groups (n of students=39). Furthermore statistical data of 11 exams (n of students=377) concerning the KFPs and (cb)MCQs were compared. Summary of Results: The analysis of the focus groups resulted in four themes reflecting students’ perceptions of KFPs and their comparison with (cb)MCQ: KFPs were perceived as (i) more realistic, (ii) more difficult, (iii) more motivating for the intense study of clinical reasoning than (cb)MCQ and (iv) showed an overall good acceptance when some preconditions are taken into account. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no difference in difficulty; however KFP showed a higher discrimination and reliability (G-coefficient) even when corrected for testing times. Correlation of the different exam parts was intermediate. Conclusions: Students perceived the KFPs as more motivating for the study of clinical reasoning. Statistically KFPs showed a higher discrimination and higher reliability than cbMCQs. Take-home messages: Including KFPs with long menu questions into summative clerkship exams seems to offer positive educational effects.

L’identification et la remédiation des difficultés de raisonnement clinique en médecine (État des pratiques, recherche d’outils et processus pour soutenir les cliniciens enseignants)

INTRODUCTION : Le raisonnement clinique est au coeur de l’exercice professionnel. Cependant, nous manquons d'instruments pour identifier et objectiver les difficultés de raisonnement clinique, et il existe relativement peu de descriptions de méthodes de remédiation définies. Un important travail reste donc à faire, pour mieux comprendre comment les difficultés se manifestent dans le raisonnement clinique des étudiants en formation, mais également pour rendre ces concepts plus accessibles aux enseignants; ceci permettra alors d’améliorer la qualité de la démarche d’identification des difficultés, et d’envisager des remédiations ciblées et efficaces. OBJECTIFS : Cette recherche s’articule d’une part, autour de l’objectivation et la compréhension des pratiques actuelles des cliniciens enseignants en médecine, d’autre part, autour de la construction et l’implantation d’outils et de processus susceptibles de faciliter la démarche de diagnostic et de remédiation des difficultés de raisonnement clinique. MÉTHODOLOGIE : Une recherche de type qualitative, utilisant les méthodes de la recherche action participative s’est révélée pertinente pour atteindre nos objectifs. La recherche est composée de quatre étapes : 1. Une étude exploratoire. 2. La construction et de l’implantation d’un premier outil dans trois milieux cliniques en médecine familiale. 3. L’élaboration d’une taxonomie des difficultés de raisonnement clinique ainsi que la construction d’un nouvel outil. 4. Le développement d’une approche globale pour soutenir et former les cliniciens enseignants. RÉSULTATS : Les enseignants ont une perception rapide, mais qui demeure globale et intuitive, des potentielles difficultés de raisonnement clinique des résidents. Cette perception ne se traduit pas forcément en termes pédagogiques. Nous avons pu observer l’absence de processus pédagogiques organisés et structurés pour la gestion de ces difficultés. Ceci semble projeter les cliniciens enseignants dans une zone d’inconfort, en les confrontant à un manque de maîtrise et à l’incertitude au sujet de leurs actions pédagogiques. La catégorisation des difficultés de raisonnement clinique que nous avons construite permet d’identifier les difficultés telles qu’elles se manifestent dans le quotidien des supervisions cliniques. Cet outil a cependant besoin d’être intégré dans un processus plus global. CONCLUSION : Une approche globale qui comprenne le développement de processus implantés par le Département, l’implantation d’outils, la vulgarisation de la théorie, et la formation des enseignants est déterminante.

Une approche algorithmique des difficultés de raisonnement clinique : étude d’utilité, d’acceptabilité et de faisabilité

Résumé: INTRODUCTION Si les cliniciens enseignants détectent aisément les difficultés des apprenants, ils sont souvent peu outillés pour les étapes subséquentes, du diagnostic à la remédiation. Quoique des outils aient été développés pour les guider face aux difficultés de raisonnement clinique de leurs apprenants, ces outils peuvent être moins familiers des cliniciens et moins adaptés à des contextes de supervision ponctuelle et de soins aigus comme l’urgence. Nous avons donc développé une application algorithmique, à partir de la taxonomie d’Audétat et al. (2010), pour guider les cliniciens enseignants juste-à-temps face aux difficultés de raisonnement clinique. MÉTHODOLOGIE Une étude descriptive interprétative a été réalisée afin d’évaluer l’utilité, l’acceptabilité et la faisabilité d’utiliser cette application à l’urgence. Des entrevues semi-dirigées ont été menées auprès d’un échantillon de convenance de douze urgentistes, avant et après une période d’essai de l’outil de trois mois. RÉSULTATS L’application a été perçue comme particulièrement utile pour préciser les difficultés de raisonnement clinique des apprenants. Utiliser l’outil a été considérée acceptable et faisable en contexte d’urgence, en particulier grâce au format mobile. DISCUSSION Ces résultats suggèrent que l’outil peut être considéré utile pour faciliter l’identification des difficultés des apprenants, mais aussi pour offrir un soutien professoral accessible. Le format mobile et algorithmique semble avoir été un facteur facilitant, ce format étant déjà utilisé par les cliniciens pour consulter ponctuellement de l’information lors de la résolution de problèmes cliniques. CONCLUSION L’étude a démontré globalement une bonne utilité, acceptabilité et faisabilité de l’outil dans un contexte de supervision ponctuelle en soins aigus, ce qui soutient son utilisation par les cliniciens enseignants dans ce contexte. L’étude corrobore également l’intérêt d’un format mobile et algorithmique pour favoriser le transfert de connaissances en pédagogie médicale.

Synthesis of optimization of [11C] Pittsburgh compound B by the captive solvent method

Mestrado em Medicina Nuclear.