Can We Teach Reflective Reasoning in General-Practice Training Through Example-Based Learning and Learning by Doing?

Q1 Nursing
Josepha Kuhn , Pieter van den Berg , Silvia Mamede , Laura Zwaan , Agnes Diemers , Patrick Bindels , Tamara van Gog
{"title":"Can We Teach Reflective Reasoning in General-Practice Training Through Example-Based Learning and Learning by Doing?","authors":"Josepha Kuhn ,&nbsp;Pieter van den Berg ,&nbsp;Silvia Mamede ,&nbsp;Laura Zwaan ,&nbsp;Agnes Diemers ,&nbsp;Patrick Bindels ,&nbsp;Tamara van Gog","doi":"10.1016/j.hpe.2020.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3><em>Purpose</em></h3><p>Flaws in physicians’ reasoning frequently result in diagnostic errors. The method of <em>deliberate reflection</em> was developed to stimulate physicians to deliberately reflect upon cases, which has shown to improve diagnostic performance in complex cases. In the current randomised controlled trial, we investigated whether deliberate reflection can be taught to general-practice residents. Additionally, we investigated whether engaging in deliberate reflection or studying deliberate-reflection models would be more effective.</p></div><div><h3><em>Methods</em></h3><p>The study consisted of one learning session and two test sessions. Forty-four general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions in the learning session: (1) control without reflecting (<em>n =</em> 14); (2) engaging in deliberate reflection (<em>n =</em> 11); or (3) studying deliberate-reflection models (<em>n =</em> 19). To assess learning, they diagnosed new cases in both a same-day test and a delayed test one week later. In the delayed test, participants were additionally asked to elaborate on their decisions. We analysed diagnostic accuracy and whether their reasoning contained key elements of deliberate reflection.</p></div><div><h3><em>Results</em></h3><p>We found no significant differences between the study conditions in diagnostic accuracy on the same-day test, <em>p</em> = .649, or on diagnostic accuracy, <em>p</em> = .747, and reflective reasoning, <em>p</em> = .647, on the delayed test.</p></div><div><h3><em>Discussion</em></h3><p>Against expectations, deliberate reflection did not increase future reflective reasoning. Future studies are needed to investigate whether residents either did not sufficiently learn the procedure, did not adopt it when diagnosing cases without instructions to reflect, or whether the reflective-reasoning process as itself cannot be taught.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93562,"journal":{"name":"Health professions education","volume":"6 4","pages":"Pages 506-515"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.07.004","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health professions education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452301120300675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Purpose

Flaws in physicians’ reasoning frequently result in diagnostic errors. The method of deliberate reflection was developed to stimulate physicians to deliberately reflect upon cases, which has shown to improve diagnostic performance in complex cases. In the current randomised controlled trial, we investigated whether deliberate reflection can be taught to general-practice residents. Additionally, we investigated whether engaging in deliberate reflection or studying deliberate-reflection models would be more effective.

Methods

The study consisted of one learning session and two test sessions. Forty-four general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions in the learning session: (1) control without reflecting (n = 14); (2) engaging in deliberate reflection (n = 11); or (3) studying deliberate-reflection models (n = 19). To assess learning, they diagnosed new cases in both a same-day test and a delayed test one week later. In the delayed test, participants were additionally asked to elaborate on their decisions. We analysed diagnostic accuracy and whether their reasoning contained key elements of deliberate reflection.

Results

We found no significant differences between the study conditions in diagnostic accuracy on the same-day test, p = .649, or on diagnostic accuracy, p = .747, and reflective reasoning, p = .647, on the delayed test.

Discussion

Against expectations, deliberate reflection did not increase future reflective reasoning. Future studies are needed to investigate whether residents either did not sufficiently learn the procedure, did not adopt it when diagnosing cases without instructions to reflect, or whether the reflective-reasoning process as itself cannot be taught.

在普通实践训练中,我们能通过实例学习和实践学习来教授反思性推理吗?
目的医生的推理缺陷经常导致诊断错误。刻意反思的方法是为了刺激医生有意识地反思病例,这已被证明可以提高复杂病例的诊断性能。在当前的随机对照试验中,我们调查了是否可以教授全科住院医生有意识的反思。此外,我们还调查了参与深思熟虑的反思或研究深思熟虑的反思模型是否更有效。方法研究分为1个学习阶段和2个测试阶段。在学习过程中,44名全科住院医生被随机分配到三种研究条件中的一种:(1)没有反思的控制(n = 14);(2)有意识地反思(n = 11);(3)研究刻意反思模型(n = 19)。为了评估学习情况,他们在当天的测试和一周后的延迟测试中诊断了新的病例。在延迟测试中,参与者还被要求详细说明他们的决定。我们分析了诊断的准确性,以及他们的推理是否包含了深思熟虑的关键要素。结果我们发现研究条件在当天测试的诊断准确性(p = 0.649)和延迟测试的诊断准确性(p = 0.647)和反思推理(p = 0.647)方面没有显著差异。与预期相反,深思熟虑的反思并没有增加未来的反思推理。未来的研究需要调查居民是否没有充分了解该程序,在没有指示的情况下诊断病例时没有采用该程序,或者是否不能教授反思推理过程本身。
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
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信