Student and educator perspectives on clinical reasoning: A qualitative study.

IF 1 Q4 REHABILITATION
South African Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2025-05-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2161
Danelle Hess, Jacqueline Hendricks, José Frantz, Michael Rowe
{"title":"Student and educator perspectives on clinical reasoning: A qualitative study.","authors":"Danelle Hess, Jacqueline Hendricks, José Frantz, Michael Rowe","doi":"10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When students and educators understand a skill like clinical reasoning (CR) differently, attempting to develop it becomes challenging. Miscommunication in how different stakeholders understand this essential skill can potentially harm patients.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our study explores how physiotherapy students and educators (both lecturers and clinical educators [CEs]) in a physiotherapy department understand CR. The research aimed to identify any potential gaps in the stakeholders' understanding of CR and explore strategies for better alignment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 undergraduate physiotherapy students, 10 physiotherapy lecturers, and 8 CEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thematic analysis revealed three key themes: cognitive process, evidence-based practice, and clinical approach. Significant differences emerged between experts (lecturers and CEs) and novices (students) in conceptualising CR. The experts demonstrated a more holistic understanding, focusing on hypothesis generation and interconnected reasoning. In contrast, students focus on information collecting and justification of actions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings highlight a gap in CR understanding that could potentially impede reaching expected learning outcomes.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Our study recommends seeking alignment of students' and educators' perspectives through structured dialogue and intentionally designed educational strategies. This includes developing holistic assessment rubrics that acknowledge both foundational and advanced CR skills and implementing case-based learning approaches. And creating opportunities for educators to make their reasoning processes explicit and visible to students.</p>","PeriodicalId":44180,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"81 1","pages":"2161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135713/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: When students and educators understand a skill like clinical reasoning (CR) differently, attempting to develop it becomes challenging. Miscommunication in how different stakeholders understand this essential skill can potentially harm patients.

Objectives: Our study explores how physiotherapy students and educators (both lecturers and clinical educators [CEs]) in a physiotherapy department understand CR. The research aimed to identify any potential gaps in the stakeholders' understanding of CR and explore strategies for better alignment.

Method: A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 undergraduate physiotherapy students, 10 physiotherapy lecturers, and 8 CEs.

Results: Thematic analysis revealed three key themes: cognitive process, evidence-based practice, and clinical approach. Significant differences emerged between experts (lecturers and CEs) and novices (students) in conceptualising CR. The experts demonstrated a more holistic understanding, focusing on hypothesis generation and interconnected reasoning. In contrast, students focus on information collecting and justification of actions.

Conclusion: The findings highlight a gap in CR understanding that could potentially impede reaching expected learning outcomes.

Clinical implications: Our study recommends seeking alignment of students' and educators' perspectives through structured dialogue and intentionally designed educational strategies. This includes developing holistic assessment rubrics that acknowledge both foundational and advanced CR skills and implementing case-based learning approaches. And creating opportunities for educators to make their reasoning processes explicit and visible to students.

学生和教育者对临床推理的看法:一项定性研究。
背景:当学生和教育工作者对临床推理(CR)等技能的理解不同时,试图发展它就变得具有挑战性。不同利益相关者对这一基本技能的误解可能会对患者造成潜在伤害。目的:本研究探讨理疗系的物理治疗学生和教育工作者(包括讲师和临床教育工作者[ce])如何理解CR。本研究旨在确定利益相关者对CR理解中的任何潜在差距,并探索更好地协调的策略。方法:采用定性探索性描述设计。对27名本科物理治疗专业学生、10名物理治疗讲师和8名ce进行了深度访谈。结果:主题分析揭示了三个关键主题:认知过程、循证实践和临床方法。专家(讲师和ce)和新手(学生)在CR概念上存在显著差异。专家表现出更全面的理解,专注于假设生成和相互关联的推理。相比之下,学生关注的是信息收集和行为的正当性。结论:研究结果突出了在CR理解上的差距,这可能会阻碍实现预期的学习成果。临床意义:我们的研究建议通过有组织的对话和有意设计的教育策略来寻求学生和教育者观点的一致性。这包括制定全面的评估标准,承认基本和高级的社会责任技能,并实施基于案例的学习方法。并为教育工作者创造机会,让他们的推理过程对学生清晰可见。
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信