Can Nonclinician Raters Be Trained to Assess Clinical Reasoning in Postencounter Patient Notes?

PURPOSE

Clinical reasoning is often assessed through patient notes (PNs) following standardized patient (SP) encounters. While nonclinicians can score PNs using analytic tools such as checklists, these do not sufficiently encompass the holistic judgments of clinician faculty. To better model faculty judgments, the authors developed checklists with faculty-specified scoring formulas embedded in spreadsheets and studied the resulting interrater reliability (IRR) of nonclinician raters (SPs and medics) and student pass/fail status.

METHOD

In Study 1, nonclinician and faculty raters rescored PNs of 55 third-year medical students across 5 cases of the 2017 Graduation Competency Examination (GCE) to determine IRR. In Study 2, nonclinician raters scored all notes of the 5-case 2018 GCE (178 students). Faculty rescored all notes of failing students and could modify formula-derived scores if faculty felt appropriate. Faculty also rescored and corrected scores of additional notes for a total of 90 notes (3 cases, including failing notes).

RESULTS

Mean overall percent exact agreement between nonclinician and faculty ratings was 87% (weighted kappa, 0.86) and 83% (weighted kappa, 0.88) for Study 1 and Study 2, respectively. SP and medic IRRs did not differ significantly. Four students failed the note section in 2018; 3 passed after faculty corrections. Few corrections were made to nonfailing students' notes.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonclinician PN raters using checklists and scoring rules may provide a feasible alternative to faculty raters for low-stakes assessments and for the bulk of well-performing students. Faculty effort can be targeted strategically at rescoring notes of low-performing students and providing more detailed feedback.