Hess Danelle, Hendricks Jacqueline, Frantz José, Rowe Michael
Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor: Research and Innovation, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
S Afr J Physiother. 2025 May 28;81(1):2161. doi: 10.4102/sajp.v81i1.2161. eCollection 2025.
When students and educators understand a skill like clinical reasoning (CR) differently, attempting to develop it becomes challenging. Miscommunication in how different stakeholders understand this essential skill can potentially harm patients.
Our study explores how physiotherapy students and educators (both lecturers and clinical educators [CEs]) in a physiotherapy department understand CR. The research aimed to identify any potential gaps in the stakeholders' understanding of CR and explore strategies for better alignment.
A qualitative exploratory descriptive design was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with 27 undergraduate physiotherapy students, 10 physiotherapy lecturers, and 8 CEs.
Thematic analysis revealed three key themes: cognitive process, evidence-based practice, and clinical approach. Significant differences emerged between experts (lecturers and CEs) and novices (students) in conceptualising CR. The experts demonstrated a more holistic understanding, focusing on hypothesis generation and interconnected reasoning. In contrast, students focus on information collecting and justification of actions.
The findings highlight a gap in CR understanding that could potentially impede reaching expected learning outcomes.
Our study recommends seeking alignment of students' and educators' perspectives through structured dialogue and intentionally designed educational strategies. This includes developing holistic assessment rubrics that acknowledge both foundational and advanced CR skills and implementing case-based learning approaches. And creating opportunities for educators to make their reasoning processes explicit and visible to students.
当学生和教育工作者对临床推理(CR)等技能的理解存在差异时,尝试培养该技能就会变得具有挑战性。不同利益相关者对这一关键技能理解上的沟通不畅可能会对患者造成潜在伤害。
我们的研究探讨了物理治疗专业的学生以及该专业的教育工作者(包括讲师和临床教育工作者[CEs])对临床推理的理解。该研究旨在找出利益相关者在临床推理理解方面的潜在差距,并探索实现更好一致性的策略。
采用定性探索性描述性设计。对27名本科物理治疗专业学生、10名物理治疗讲师和8名临床教育工作者进行了深入访谈。
主题分析揭示了三个关键主题:认知过程、循证实践和临床方法。在临床推理的概念化方面,专家(讲师和临床教育工作者)和新手(学生)之间存在显著差异。专家表现出更全面的理解,侧重于假设生成和相互关联的推理。相比之下,学生则侧重于信息收集和行动的合理性证明。
研究结果凸显了在临床推理理解方面的差距,这可能会阻碍实现预期的学习成果。
我们的研究建议通过结构化对话和精心设计的教育策略,使学生和教育工作者的观点达成一致。这包括制定全面的评估标准,认可基础和高级临床推理技能,并实施基于案例的学习方法。为教育工作者创造机会,让学生能够清楚看到他们的推理过程。