General practitioners’ decision to refer patients to dietitians : insight into the clinical reasoning process

The aim of this project was to describe general practitioners’ (GPs’) decision-making process for reducing nutrition risk in cardiac patients through referring a patient to a dietitian. The setting was primary care practices in Victoria. The method we employed was mixed methods research: in Study 1, 30 GPs were interviewed. Recorded interviews were transcribed and narratives analysed thematically. Study 2 involved a survey of statewide random sample of GPs. Frequencies and analyses of variance were used to explore the impact of demographic variables on decisions to refer. We found that the referral decision involved four elements: (i) synthesising management information; (ii) forecasting outcomes; (iii) planning management; and (iv) actioning referrals. GPs applied cognitive and collaborative strategies to develop a treatment plan. In Study 2, doctors (248 GPs, 30%) concurred with identified barriers/enabling factors for patients’ referral. There was no association between GPs’ sex, age or hours worked per week and referral factors. We conclude that a GP’s judgment to offer a dietetic referral to an adult patient is a four element reasoning process. Attention to how these elements interact may assist clinical decision making. Apart from the sole use of prescribed medications/surgical procedures for cardiac care, patients offered a dietetic referral were those who were considered able to commit to dietary change and who were willing to attend a dietetic consultation. Improvements in provision of patients’ nutrition intervention information to GPs are needed. Further investigation is justified to determine how to resolve this practice gap.

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.

The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts. A group of 21 experienced general practitioners were asked to complete the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) and a set of 10 clinical reasoning problems (CRPs) to evaluate their clinical reasoning. Both the DTI and the CRPs were scored, and the CRP response patterns of each GP examined in terms of the number and type of errors contained in them. Analysis of these data showed that six GPs were able to reach the correct diagnosis using significantly less clinical information than their colleagues. These GPs also made significantly fewer interpretation errors but scored lower on both the DTI and the CRPs. Additionally, this analysis showed that more than 20% of misdiagnoses occurred despite no errors being made in the identification and interpretation of relevant clinical information. These results indicate that these six GPs diagnose efficiently, effectively and accurately using relatively few clinical data and can therefore be classified as diagnostic experts. They also indicate that a major cause of misdiagnoses is failure to properly integrate clinical data. We suggest that increased emphasis on this step in the reasoning process should prove beneficial to the development of clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students.

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.

Promoting clinical reasoning in general practice trainees: role of the clinical teacher

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning requires knowledge, cognition and metacognition, and is contextually bound. Clinical teachers can and should play a key role in explicitly promoting clinical reasoning.

CONTEXT: The aim of this article is to relate the clinical reasoning literature to the general practice or family medicine context, and to provide clinical teachers with strategies to promote clinical reasoning.

INNOVATION: It is important that the clinical teacher teaches trainees the specific skills sets of the expert general practitioner (e.g. synthesising skills, recognising prototypes, focusing on cues and clues, using community resources and dealing with uncertainty) in order to promote clinical reasoning in the context of general practice or family medicine. Clinical teachers need to understand their own reasoning processes as well as be able to convey that knowledge to their trainees. They also need to understand the developmental stages of clinical reasoning and be able to nurture each trainee's own expertise. Strategies for facilitating effective clinical reasoning in trainees include adequate exposure to patients, offering the trainees opportunity for reflection and feedback, and coaching on the techniques of reasoning in the general practice context.

IMPLICATIONS: The journey to expertise in clinical reasoning is unique to each clinician, with different skills developing at different rates, depending on content, context and past experience. Doctors enter into general practice training with the building blocks of biomedical and clinical knowledge and a desire to learn how to be a general practitioner. Clinical teachers are integral in the process of helping trainees learn how to 'think like a general practitioner'.

Clinical reasoning sessions: back to the patient

BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning (PBL) was developed as a facilitated small group learning process based around a clinical problem. Originally designed for pre-clinical years of medical education, its application across all years poses a number of difficulties, including the risk of reducing patient contact, providing a learning process that is skewed towards an understanding of pathophysiological processes, which may not be well understood in all areas of medicine, and failing to provide exposure to clinically relevant reasoning skills. CONTEXT: Curriculum review identified dissatisfaction with PBLs in the clinical years of the Sydney Medical School's Graduate Medical Program, from both staff and students. A new model was designed and implemented in the Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine rotation, and is currently being evaluated. INNOVATION: We describe an innovative model of small-group, student-generated, case-based learning in psychiatry - clinical reasoning sessions (CRS) - led by expert facilitators. IMPLICATIONS: The CRS format returns the student to the patient, emphasises clinical assessment skills and considers treatment in the real-world context of the patient. Students practise a more sophisticated reasoning process with real patients modelled upon that of their expert tutor. This has increased student engagement compared with the previous PBL programme.

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.

Using ‘think aloud’ as a strategy for learning clinical reasoning in high fidelity case-based simulation for undergraduate nursing students

AIMS This paper reports on the implementation of a research project that trials an educational strategy implemented over six months of an undergraduate third year nursing curriculum. This project aims to explore the effectiveness of ‘think aloud’ as a strategy for learning clinical reasoning for students in simulated clinical settings. BACKGROUND Nurses are required to apply and utilise critical thinking skills to enable clinical reasoning and problem solving in the clinical setting [1]. Nursing students are expected to develop and display clinical reasoning skills in practice, but may struggle articulating reasons behind decisions about patient care. For students learning to manage complex clinical situations, teaching approaches are required that make these instinctive cognitive processes explicit and clear [2-5]. In line with professional expectations, nursing students in third year at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) are expected to display clinical reasoning skills in practice. This can be a complex proposition for students in practice situations, particularly as the degree of uncertainty or decision complexity increases [6-7]. The ‘think aloud’ approach is an innovative learning/teaching method which can create an environment suitable for developing clinical reasoning skills in students [4, 8]. This project aims to use the ‘think aloud’ strategy within a simulation context to provide a safe learning environment in which third year students are assisted to uncover cognitive approaches that best assist them to make effective patient care decisions, and improve their confidence, clinical reasoning and active critical reflection on their practice. MEHODS In semester 2 2011 at QUT, third year nursing students will undertake high fidelity simulation, some for the first time commencing in September of 2011. There will be two cohorts for strategy implementation (group 1= use think aloud as a strategy within the simulation, group 2= not given a specific strategy outside of nursing assessment frameworks) in relation to problem solving patient needs. Students will be briefed about the scenario, given a nursing handover, placed into a simulation group and an observer group, and the facilitator/teacher will run the simulation from a control room, and not have contact (as a ‘teacher’) with students during the simulation. Then debriefing will occur as a whole group outside of the simulation room where the session can be reviewed on screen. The think aloud strategy will be described to students in their pre-simulation briefing and allow for clarification of this strategy at this time. All other aspects of the simulations remain the same, (resources, suggested nursing assessment frameworks, simulation session duration, size of simulation teams, preparatory materials). RESULTS Methodology of the project and the challenges of implementation will be the focus of this presentation. This will include ethical considerations in designing the project, recruitment of students and implementation of a voluntary research project within a busy educational curriculum which in third year targets 669 students over two campuses. CONCLUSIONS In an environment of increasingly constrained clinical placement opportunities, exploration of alternate strategies to improve critical thinking skills and develop clinical reasoning and problem solving for nursing students is imperative in preparing nurses to respond to changing patient needs. References 1. Lasater, K., High-fidelity simulation and the development of clinical judgement: students' experiences. Journal of Nursing Education, 2007. 46(6): p. 269-276. 2. Lapkin, S., et al., Effectiveness of patient simulation manikins in teaching clinical reasoning skills to undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2010. 6(6): p. e207-22. 3. Kaddoura, M.P.C.M.S.N.R.N., New Graduate Nurses' Perceptions of the Effects of Clinical Simulation on Their Critical Thinking, Learning, and Confidence. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 2010. 41(11): p. 506. 4. Banning, M., The think aloud approach as an educational tool to develop and assess clinical reasoning in undergraduate students. Nurse Education Today, 2008. 28: p. 8-14. 5. Porter-O'Grady, T., Profound change:21st century nursing. Nursing Outlook, 2001. 49(4): p. 182-186. 6. Andersson, A.K., M. Omberg, and M. Svedlund, Triage in the emergency department-a qualitative study of the factors which nurses consider when making decisions. Nursing in Critical Care, 2006. 11(3): p. 136-145. 7. O'Neill, E.S., N.M. Dluhy, and C. Chin, Modelling novice clinical reasoning for a computerized decision support system. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2005. 49(1): p. 68-77. 8. Lee, J.E. and N. Ryan-Wenger, The "Think Aloud" seminar for teaching clinical reasoning: a case study of a child with pharyngitis. J Pediatr Health Care, 1997. 11(3): p. 101-10.

Using ‘think aloud’ as a strategy for improving clinical reasoning in high fidelity case-based simulation for undergraduate nursing students.

Theme Paper for Curriculum innovation and enhancement theme AIM: This paper reports on a research project that trialled an educational strategy implemented in an undergraduate nursing curriculum. The project aimed to explore the effectiveness of ‘think aloud’ as a strategy for improving clinical reasoning for students in simulated clinical settings. BACKGROUND: Nurses are required to apply and utilise critical thinking skills to enable clinical reasoning and problem solving in the clinical setting (Lasater, 2007). Nursing students are expected to develop and display clinical reasoning skills in practice, but may struggle articulating reasons behind decisions about patient care. The ‘think aloud’ approach is an innovative learning/teaching method which can create an environment suitable for developing clinical reasoning skills in students (Banning, 2008, Lee and Ryan-Wenger, 1997). This project used the ‘think aloud’ strategy within a simulation context to provide a safe learning environment in which third year students were assisted to uncover cognitive approaches to assist in making effective patient care decisions, and improve their confidence, clinical reasoning and active critical reflection about their practice. MEHODS: In semester 2 2011 at QUT, third year nursing students undertook high fidelity simulation (some for the first time), commencing in September of 2011. There were two cohorts for strategy implementation (group 1= used think aloud as a strategy within the simulation, group 2= no specific strategy outside of nursing assessment frameworks used by all students) in relation to problem solving patient needs. The think aloud strategy was described to students in their pre-simulation briefing and allowed time for clarification of this strategy. All other aspects of the simulations remained the same, (resources, suggested nursing assessment frameworks, simulation session duration, size of simulation teams, preparatory materials). Ethics approval has been obtained for this project. RESULTS: Results of a qualitative analysis (in progress- will be completed by March 2012) of student and facilitator reports on students’ ability to meet the learning objectives of solving patient problems using clinical reasoning and experience with the ‘think aloud’ method will be presented. A comparison of clinical reasoning learning outcomes between the two groups will determine the effect on clinical reasoning for students responding to patient problems. CONCLUSIONS: In an environment of increasingly constrained clinical placement opportunities, exploration of alternate strategies to improve critical thinking skills and develop clinical reasoning and problem solving for nursing students is imperative in preparing nurses to respond to changing patient needs.

Exploring an innovative educational approach to facilitating student nurses' clinical-reasoning skills in North Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

This study examined the effect of an educational intervention utilizing principles of cognitive apprenticeship on students’ ability to apply clinical reasoning skills within the context of a purpose-built clinical vignette. A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control-group design was used to evaluate the effect of the educational intervention on students’ accuracy, inaccuracy and self-confidence in clinical reasoning. This study makes an important contribution to nursing education by providing evidence to understand how best to facilitate nursing students’ development of clinical reasoning.

The association between student characteristics and the development of clinical reasoning in a graduate-entry, PBL medical programme

This study sought to assess the extent to which the entry characteristics of students in a graduate-entry medical programme predict the subsequent development of clinical reasoning ability. Subjects comprised 290 students voluntarily recruited from three successive cohorts of the University of Queensland's MBBS Programme. Clinical reasoning was measured once a year over a period of three years using two methods, a set of 10 Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs) and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI). Data on gender, age at entry into the programme, nature of primary degree, scores on selection criteria (written examination plus interview) and academic performance in the first two years of the programme were recorded for each student, and their association with clinical reasoning skill analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis indicated significant associations between CRP score, gender and primary degree with a significant but small association between DTI and interview score. Stage of progression through the programme was also an important predictor of performance on both indicators. Subsequent multivariate analysis suggested that female gender is a positive predictor of CRP score independently of the nature of a subject's primary degree and stage of progression through the programme, although these latter two variables are interdependent. Positive predictors of clinical reasoning skill are stage of progression through the MBBS programme, female gender and interview score. Although the nature of a student's primary degree is important in the early years of the programme, evidence suggests that by graduation differences between students' clinical reasoning skill due to this factor have been resolved.

Core components of communication of clinical reasoning: a qualitative study with experienced Australian physiotherapists

Communication is an important area in health professional education curricula, however it has been dealt with as discrete skills that can be learned and taught separate to the underlying thinking. Communication of clinical reasoning is a phenomenon that has largely been ignored in the literature. This research sought to examine how experienced physiotherapists communicate their clinical reasoning and to identify the core processes of this communication. A hermeneutic phenomenological research study was conducted using multiple methods of text construction including repeated semi-structured interviews, observation and written exercises. Hermeneutic analysis of texts involved iterative reading and interpretation of texts with the development of themes and sub-themes. Communication of clinical reasoning was perceived to be complex, dynamic and largely automatic. A key finding was that articulating reasoning (particularly during research) does not completely represent actual reasoning processes but represents a (re)construction of the more complex, rapid and multi-layered processes that operate in practice. These communications are constructed in ways that are perceived as being most relevant to the audience, context and purpose of the communication. Five core components of communicating clinical reasoning were identified: active listening, framing and presenting the message, matching the co-communicator, metacognitive aspects of communication and clinical reasoning abilities. We propose that communication of clinical reasoning is both an inherent part of reasoning as well as an essential and complementary skill based on the contextual demands of the task and situation. In this way clinical reasoning and its communication are intertwined, providing evidence for the argument that they should be learned (and explicitly taught) in synergy and in context.

Using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning

This paper is primarily targeted at doctoral students and other researchers considering using hermeneutic phenomenology as a research strategy. We present interpretive paradigm research designed to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate their clinical reasoning in professional practice. Twelve experienced physiotherapy practitioners participated in this research. Using hermeneutic phenomenology enabled access to a phenomenon that is often subconscious and provided a means of interpreting participants’ experiences of personal learning journeys. Within the philosophy underpinning hermeneutic phenomenology, researchers need to design a research strategy that flows directly from the research question and goals of the research project. This paper explores such a strategy.