Institute for Medical Education, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Medical School, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 4;13(10):e0204900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204900. eCollection 2018.
Clinical reasoning is an important topic in healthcare training, assessment, and research. Virtual patients (VPs) are a safe environment to teach, assess and perform research on clinical reasoning and diagnostic accuracy. Our aim was to explore the details of the clinical reasoning process and diagnostic accuracy of undergraduate medical students when working with VPs using a concept mapping tool.
Over seven months we provided access to 67 German and 30 English VPs combined with a concept mapping tool to visualize and measure the clinical reasoning process of identifying problems, differential diagnoses, recommended tests and treatment options, and composing a summary statement about a VP. A final diagnosis had to be submitted by the learners in order to conclude the VP scenario. Learners were allowed multiple attempts or could request the correct diagnosis from the system.
We analyzed 1,393 completed concept maps from 317 learners. We found significant differences between maps with a correct final diagnosis on one or multiple attempts and maps in which learners gave up and requested the solution from the system. These maps had lower scores, fewer summary statements, and fewer problems, differential diagnoses, tests, and treatments.
The different use patterns and scores between learners who had the correct final diagnosis on one or multiple attempts and those who gave up, indicate that diagnostic accuracy in the form of a correct final diagnosis on the first attempt has to be reconsidered as a sole indicator for clinical reasoning competency. For the training, assessment, and research of clinical reasoning we suggest focusing more on the details of the process to reach a correct diagnosis, rather than whether it was made in the first attempt.
临床推理是医疗培训、评估和研究的重要课题。虚拟患者(VP)是教授、评估和研究临床推理和诊断准确性的安全环境。我们的目的是使用概念图工具探索本科生在使用 VP 时的临床推理过程和诊断准确性的细节。
在七个月的时间里,我们提供了 67 个德语和 30 个英语 VP,以及一个概念图工具,以可视化和衡量识别问题、鉴别诊断、推荐测试和治疗方案以及撰写 VP 总结陈述的临床推理过程。学习者必须提交最终诊断才能结束 VP 场景。学习者可以多次尝试,也可以向系统请求正确的诊断。
我们分析了 317 名学习者完成的 1393 份概念图。我们发现,在一次或多次尝试中有正确最终诊断的图与学习者放弃并向系统请求解决方案的图之间存在显著差异。这些图的得分较低,总结陈述较少,问题、鉴别诊断、测试和治疗方案也较少。
在一次或多次尝试中有正确最终诊断的学习者和放弃并向系统请求解决方案的学习者之间的不同使用模式和得分表明,以第一次尝试中正确的最终诊断作为临床推理能力的唯一指标需要重新考虑。对于临床推理的培训、评估和研究,我们建议更多地关注达到正确诊断的过程细节,而不是首次尝试是否成功。