Rojas Marcos, Price Argenta, Kim Candice Jeehae, Chen Sharon F, Gutierrez Kathleen, Wieman Carl, Salehi Shima
Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2024 Dec 24;15:1285-1297. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S492302. eCollection 2024.
Numerous challenges exist in effectively bridging theory and practice in the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, despite an abundance of theoretical models. This study compares clinical reasoning practices and decisions between medical students and expert clinicians using a problem-solving framework from the learning sciences, which identifies clinical reasoning as distinct, observable actions in clinical case solving. We examined students at various training stages against expert clinicians to address the research question: How do expert clinicians and medical students differ in their practices and decisions during the diagnostic process?.
We developed a questionnaire about a pediatric infectious disease case based on the problem-solving framework from the learning sciences to probe clinical reasoning decisions. The questionnaire had four sections: medical history, physical examination, medical tests, and working diagnosis. The questionnaire was administered at Stanford University between January 2019 and June 2023 to collect data from 10 experts and 74 medical students. We recruited participants through maximum variation sampling. We applied deductive content analysis to systematically code responses to identify patterns in the execution of the practices and decisions across the questionnaire.
This research introduces a highly detailed, empirically developed framework that holds potential to bridge theory and practice, offering practical insights for medical instructors in teaching clinical reasoning to students across various stages of their training. This framework involves nine practices, with a total of twenty-nine decisions that need to be made when carrying out these practices. Differences between experts and students centered on ten decisions across the practices: Differential diagnosis formulation, Diagnostic plan and execution, Clinical data reassessment, and Clinical solution review.
We were able to identify nuanced differences in clinical reasoning between students and expert physicians under one comprehensive problem-solving framework from the learning sciences. Identifying key clinical reasoning practices and decision differences could help develop targeted instructional materials and assessment tools, aiding instructors in fostering clinical reasoning in students.
尽管存在大量理论模型,但在临床推理的教学与评估中,有效弥合理论与实践之间的差距仍面临诸多挑战。本研究运用学习科学中的问题解决框架,比较医学生和专家临床医生的临床推理实践与决策,该框架将临床推理视为临床病例解决过程中独特的、可观察的行为。我们针对处于不同培训阶段的学生与专家临床医生进行研究,以解决以下研究问题:在诊断过程中,专家临床医生和医学生在实践与决策方面有何不同?
我们基于学习科学的问题解决框架,设计了一份关于儿科传染病病例的问卷,以探究临床推理决策。问卷分为四个部分:病史、体格检查、医学检查和初步诊断。2019年1月至2023年6月期间,该问卷在斯坦福大学进行发放,收集了10位专家和74名医学生的数据。我们通过最大差异抽样招募参与者。我们应用演绎性内容分析对回答进行系统编码,以识别问卷中实践与决策执行过程中的模式。
本研究引入了一个高度详细的、基于实证开发的框架,该框架具有弥合理论与实践差距的潜力,为医学教师在不同培训阶段向学生教授临床推理提供了实用见解。该框架包含九种实践,在执行这些实践时总共需要做出29个决策。专家与学生之间的差异集中在九种实践中的十个决策上:鉴别诊断的形成、诊断计划与执行过程、临床数据的重新评估以及临床解决方案的审查。
我们能够在学习科学的一个综合问题解决框架下,识别出学生与专家医生在临床推理方面的细微差异。识别关键的临床推理实践和决策差异有助于开发有针对性的教学材料和评估工具,帮助教师培养学生的临床推理能力。