Using language to evaluate curricular impact: a novel approach in assessing clinical reasoning curricula.

Objectives: Published clinical reasoning curricula are limited, and measuring curricular impact has proven difficult. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a broad-reaching, multi-level reasoning curricula by measuring utilization of clinical reasoning terminology in published abstracts.

Methods: In 2014, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) created a clinical reasoning curriculum with interventions at the student, resident, and faculty levels with the goal of bringing reasoning education to the forefront. This study was a retrospective analysis of published clinical vignettes of the Society of General Internal Medicine prior to local curricular intervention (2014), post-curricular intervention (2018), and on follow-up (2022). UPMC-affiliated abstracts were compared to abstracts containing reasoning terms from all other institutions, at each time point.

Results: There was a statistically significant increase in the use of clinical reasoning terms by UPMC-affiliated participants from 2014 to 2018. Non-UPMC submissions, saw a smaller, but still significant increase in the use of clinical reasoning terms. There was a decline in clinical reasoning term use from 2018 to 2022, both at UPMC and nationally.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that widespread clinical reasoning curricula can increase interest in and use of clinical reasoning terminology. Further work is needed to develop creative assessment tools for reasoning curricula.