Guerrasio Jeannette, Aagaard Eva M
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12401 East 17th Ave, Mail Code F782, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA,
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Dec;29(12):1607-14. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2955-1.
There is no widely accepted structured, evidence based strategy for the remediation of clinical reasoning skills.
To assess the effectiveness of a standardized clinical reasoning remediation plan for medical learners at various stages of training.
Learners enrolled in the University of Colorado School of Medicine Remediation Program.
From 2006 to 2012, the learner remediation program received 151 referrals. Referrals were made by medical student clerkship directors, residency and fellowship program directors, and through self-referrals. Each learner's deficiencies were identified using a standardized assessment process; 53 were noted to have clinical reasoning deficits. The authors developed and implemented a ten-step clinical reasoning remediation plan for each of these individuals, whose subsequent performance was independently assessed by unbiased faculty and senior trainees. Participant demographics, faculty time invested, and learner outcomes were tracked.
Prevalence of clinical reasoning deficits did not differ by level of training of the remediating individual (p = 0.49). Overall, the mean amount of faculty time required for remediation was 29.6 h (SD = 29.3), with a median of 18 h (IQR 5-39) and a range of 2-100 h. Fifty-one of the 53 (96%) passed the post remediation reassessment. Thirty-eight (72%) learners either graduated from their original program or continue to practice in good standing. Four (8%) additional residents who were placed on probation and five (9%) who transferred to another program have since graduated.
The ten-step remediation plan proved to be successful for the majority of learners struggling with clinical reasoning based on reassessment and limited subsequent educational outcomes. Next steps include implementing the program at other institutions to assess generalizability and tracking long-term outcomes on clinical care.
目前尚无广泛接受的、基于证据的结构化临床推理技能补救策略。
评估针对处于不同培训阶段的医学学习者的标准化临床推理补救计划的有效性。
参加科罗拉多大学医学院补救计划的学习者。
2006年至2012年,学习者补救计划共收到151份转介申请。转介申请由医学生临床实习主任、住院医师和专科培训项目主任提出,也有自我转介。通过标准化评估流程确定每个学习者的不足之处;其中53人被指出存在临床推理缺陷。作者为这些人每人制定并实施了一个十步临床推理补救计划,随后由公正的教员和高年级学员对其表现进行独立评估。跟踪参与者的人口统计学数据、教员投入的时间以及学习者的成果。
临床推理缺陷的发生率在进行补救的个体的培训水平方面没有差异(p = 0.49)。总体而言,补救所需的教员平均时间为29.6小时(标准差 = 29.3),中位数为18小时(四分位间距5 - 39),范围为2至100小时。53名学习者中有51名(96%)通过了补救后重新评估。38名(72%)学习者要么从原项目毕业,要么继续表现良好地执业。另外有4名(8%)被置于试用期的住院医师以及5名(9%)转至其他项目的住院医师后来也毕业了。
基于重新评估和有限的后续教育成果,十步补救计划被证明对大多数在临床推理方面存在困难的学习者是成功的。下一步包括在其他机构实施该计划以评估其普遍性,并跟踪临床护理的长期结果。