Validity Evidence for Using Virtual, Interactive Patient Encounters to Teach and Assess Clinical Reasoning for First-Year Medical Students.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
John K Roberts, Nancy Weigle, James W Fox, Sreeja Natesan, David Gordon, Saumil M Chudgar
{"title":"Validity Evidence for Using Virtual, Interactive Patient Encounters to Teach and Assess Clinical Reasoning for First-Year Medical Students.","authors":"John K Roberts, Nancy Weigle, James W Fox, Sreeja Natesan, David Gordon, Saumil M Chudgar","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite universal agreement on the importance of clinical reasoning skills, inadequate curricular attention to these skills remains a problem. To facilitate integration of clinical reasoning instruction and assessment into the preclerkship phase, the authors created a clinical reasoning curriculum using technology-enhanced patient simulations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In 2023, first-year medical students at Duke University School of Medicine were enrolled in a biomedical science course using diagnostic reasoning sessions and 16 virtual, interactive patient (VIP) encounters to teach and assess clinical reasoning. The encounters were enhanced with interactive pop-in windows that assessed multiple clinical reasoning domains. Student responses were independently evaluated by faculty. Cumulative VIP clinical reasoning composite (CRC) scores were calculated, and growth mixture modeling was used to define students by growth trajectory. Clinical reasoning was assessed in a summative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 118 students who participated in the curriculum, 1 was excluded from analysis for inadequate participation in the VIP encounters, leaving 117 students. The aggregate VIP encounter response rate was 95% (1,783 of 1,872 assessments completed). Clinical reasoning was assessed through cumulative performance across multiple domains. The mean (SD) scores were 58 (13) for information gathering, 46 (13) for illness script identification, 64 (14) for hypothesis generation, 59 (12) for differential diagnosis, and 77 (21) for management and plan. To identify latent classes of growth in cumulative VIP-CRC scores, growth mixture modeling was performed for 1-, 2-, and 3-class models. The 2-class model showed the best fit due to having the lowest bayesian information criterion (11,765.17) and Akaike information criteria (11,737.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrated clinical reasoning instruction and deliberate, formative practice through authentic simulations were effective at teaching and assessing clinical reasoning in the preclerkship phase. VIP and OSCE can be used to identify students at risk of low performance in the clerkship year.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005952","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Despite universal agreement on the importance of clinical reasoning skills, inadequate curricular attention to these skills remains a problem. To facilitate integration of clinical reasoning instruction and assessment into the preclerkship phase, the authors created a clinical reasoning curriculum using technology-enhanced patient simulations.

Method: In 2023, first-year medical students at Duke University School of Medicine were enrolled in a biomedical science course using diagnostic reasoning sessions and 16 virtual, interactive patient (VIP) encounters to teach and assess clinical reasoning. The encounters were enhanced with interactive pop-in windows that assessed multiple clinical reasoning domains. Student responses were independently evaluated by faculty. Cumulative VIP clinical reasoning composite (CRC) scores were calculated, and growth mixture modeling was used to define students by growth trajectory. Clinical reasoning was assessed in a summative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).

Results: Of the 118 students who participated in the curriculum, 1 was excluded from analysis for inadequate participation in the VIP encounters, leaving 117 students. The aggregate VIP encounter response rate was 95% (1,783 of 1,872 assessments completed). Clinical reasoning was assessed through cumulative performance across multiple domains. The mean (SD) scores were 58 (13) for information gathering, 46 (13) for illness script identification, 64 (14) for hypothesis generation, 59 (12) for differential diagnosis, and 77 (21) for management and plan. To identify latent classes of growth in cumulative VIP-CRC scores, growth mixture modeling was performed for 1-, 2-, and 3-class models. The 2-class model showed the best fit due to having the lowest bayesian information criterion (11,765.17) and Akaike information criteria (11,737.55).

Conclusions: Integrated clinical reasoning instruction and deliberate, formative practice through authentic simulations were effective at teaching and assessing clinical reasoning in the preclerkship phase. VIP and OSCE can be used to identify students at risk of low performance in the clerkship year.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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