Minding the gap: towards a shared clinical reasoning lexicon across the pre-clerkship/clerkship transition.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2024-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2024.2307715
Robin K Ovitsh, Shanu Gupta, Anita Kusnoor, Jennifer M Jackson, Danielle Roussel, Christopher J Mooney, Roshini Pinto-Powell, Joel L Appel, Rahul Mhaskar, Jonathan Gold
{"title":"Minding the gap: towards a shared clinical reasoning lexicon across the pre-clerkship/clerkship transition.","authors":"Robin K Ovitsh, Shanu Gupta, Anita Kusnoor, Jennifer M Jackson, Danielle Roussel, Christopher J Mooney, Roshini Pinto-Powell, Joel L Appel, Rahul Mhaskar, Jonathan Gold","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2024.2307715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Teaching and learning of clinical reasoning are core principles of medical education. However, little guidance exists for faculty leaders to navigate curricular transitions between pre-clerkship and clerkship curricular phases. This study compares how educational leaders in these two phases understand clinical reasoning instruction. Previously reported cross-sectional surveys of pre-clerkship clinical skills course directors, and clerkship leaders were compared. Comparisons focused on perceived importance of a number of core clinical reasoning concepts, barriers to clinical reasoning instruction, level of familiarity across the undergraduate medical curriculum, and inclusion of clinical reasoning instruction in each area of the curriculum. Analyses were performed using the Mann Whitney U test. Both sets of leaders rated lack of curricular time as the largest barrier to teaching clinical reasoning. Clerkship leaders also noted a lack of faculty with skills to teach clinical reasoning concepts as a significant barrier (<i>p</i> < 0.02), while pre-clerkship leaders were more likely to perceive that these concepts were too advanced for their students (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Pre-clerkship leaders reported a higher level of familiarity with the clerkship curriculum than clerkship leaders reported of the pre-clerkship curriculum (<i>p</i> < 0.001). As faculty transition students from the pre-clerkship to the clerkship phase, a shared understanding of what is taught and when, accompanied by successful faculty development, may aid the development of longitudinal, milestone-based clinical reasoning instruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":"29 1","pages":"2307715"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10848998/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2307715","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Teaching and learning of clinical reasoning are core principles of medical education. However, little guidance exists for faculty leaders to navigate curricular transitions between pre-clerkship and clerkship curricular phases. This study compares how educational leaders in these two phases understand clinical reasoning instruction. Previously reported cross-sectional surveys of pre-clerkship clinical skills course directors, and clerkship leaders were compared. Comparisons focused on perceived importance of a number of core clinical reasoning concepts, barriers to clinical reasoning instruction, level of familiarity across the undergraduate medical curriculum, and inclusion of clinical reasoning instruction in each area of the curriculum. Analyses were performed using the Mann Whitney U test. Both sets of leaders rated lack of curricular time as the largest barrier to teaching clinical reasoning. Clerkship leaders also noted a lack of faculty with skills to teach clinical reasoning concepts as a significant barrier (p < 0.02), while pre-clerkship leaders were more likely to perceive that these concepts were too advanced for their students (p < 0.001). Pre-clerkship leaders reported a higher level of familiarity with the clerkship curriculum than clerkship leaders reported of the pre-clerkship curriculum (p < 0.001). As faculty transition students from the pre-clerkship to the clerkship phase, a shared understanding of what is taught and when, accompanied by successful faculty development, may aid the development of longitudinal, milestone-based clinical reasoning instruction.

注意差距:在实习前/实习过渡期间建立共享的临床推理词典。
临床推理的教与学是医学教育的核心原则。然而,在临床实习前和临床实习课程阶段之间的课程过渡方面,几乎没有为教师领导提供指导。本研究比较了这两个阶段的教育领导者对临床推理教学的理解。对之前报道过的实习前临床技能课程主任和实习领导的横断面调查进行了比较。比较的重点是一些核心临床推理概念的认知重要性、临床推理教学的障碍、整个医学本科课程的熟悉程度以及临床推理教学在每个课程领域的包含情况。分析采用曼-惠特尼 U 检验。两组领导都认为缺乏课程时间是临床推理教学的最大障碍。实习领导还指出,缺乏掌握临床推理概念教学技能的教师也是一个重大障碍(p p p
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信