Wiese Jeff, Varosy Paul, Tierney Lawrence
General Internal Medicine Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Am J Med. 2002 Feb 15;112(3):212-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)01085-3.
The oral case presentation is an essential part of clinical medicine, but teaching medical students to present clinical data remains difficult. Presentation skills depend on the ability to obtain, process, and organize patient data. Clinical reasoning is fundamental to the development of these skills. We compared a clinical reasoning curriculum with standard ward instruction for improving presentation skills and clinical performance.
Between October 1998 and May 1999, 62 third-year medical students at three hospitals were assigned to a 4-week clinical reasoning curriculum (n = 27) or a control group (n = 35) that underwent routine instruction. The curriculum consisted of four 1-hour group sessions and 1 hour of individual videotaped instruction, and taught students to use the principles of clinical reasoning, such as generation and refinement of diagnostic hypothesis, interpretation of diagnostic tests, and causal reasoning, to determine data for inclusion in the oral presentation. We videotaped students presenting two standardized case histories; one at baseline and a second 4 weeks later. Two independent evaluators who were blinded to the group assignments reviewed the videotapes and scored them for presentation quality and efficiency, and general speaking ability.
Mean (+/- SD) presentation times at baseline were similar in the two groups (intervention group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; control group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; P = 0.74). Presentation time in students who were taught clinical reasoning decreased by 3 +/- 2 minutes, but increased by 2 +/- 2 minutes in control students. The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3 to 5 minutes; P <0.001). Presentation quality scores at baseline were similar in both groups (intervention group: 17 +/- 8 points; control group: 20 +/- 7 points; P = 0.11). Students who were taught the clinical reasoning curriculum had an improvement of 9 +/- 6 points in the quality of their presentations, while control students had an improvement of 2 +/- 7 points (on a scale of 4-36). The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 points; 95% CI: 1 to 7 points; P = 0.04).
A clinical reasoning curriculum, in combination with video-based individual instruction, improves the efficiency and quality of oral presentations, and may augment clinical performance.
口头病例汇报是临床医学的重要组成部分,但教授医学生汇报临床资料仍然困难。汇报技巧取决于获取、处理和组织患者资料的能力。临床推理是培养这些技能的基础。我们比较了临床推理课程与标准病房教学在提高汇报技巧和临床能力方面的效果。
1998年10月至1999年5月期间,三所医院的62名三年级医学生被分配到为期4周的临床推理课程组(n = 27)或接受常规教学的对照组(n = 35)。该课程包括四次1小时的小组课程和1小时的个人录像教学,教导学生运用临床推理原则,如生成和完善诊断假设、解读诊断检查以及因果推理,来确定用于口头汇报的数据。我们对学生汇报两个标准化病例史的过程进行录像,一次在基线时,另一次在4周后。两名对分组情况不知情的独立评估者观看录像,并对汇报质量、效率和总体演讲能力进行评分。
两组在基线时的平均(±标准差)汇报时间相似(干预组:8±2分钟;对照组:8±2分钟;P = 0.74)。接受临床推理教学的学生汇报时间减少了3±2分钟,而对照组学生的汇报时间增加了2±2分钟。两组变化的差异具有统计学意义(平均差异 = 4分钟;95%置信区间[CI]:3至5分钟;P <0.001)。两组在基线时的汇报质量评分相似(干预组:17±8分;对照组:20±7分;P = 0.11)。接受临床推理课程教学的学生汇报质量提高了9±6分,而对照组学生提高了2±7分(评分范围为4 - 36分)。两组变化的差异具有统计学意义(平均差异 = 4分;95%CI:1至7分;P = 0.04)。
临床推理课程结合基于录像的个人教学,可提高口头汇报的效率和质量,并可能增强临床能力。