Teaching Clinical Reasoning in the Preclinical Period.

INTRODUCTION: Developing the clinical reasoning skills necessary to becoming an astute diagnostician is essential for medical students. While some medical schools offer longitudinal opportunities for students to practice clinical reasoning during the preclinical curriculum, there remains a paucity of literature fully describing what that curriculum looks like. As a result, medical educators struggle to know what an effective clinical reasoning curriculum should look like, how it should be delivered, how it should be assessed, or what faculty development is necessary to be successful. We present our Introduction to Clinical Reasoning course that is offered throughout the preclinical curriculum of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The course introduces clinical reasoning through interactive lectures and 28 case-based small group activities over 15 months.The curriculum is grounded in script theory with a focus on diagnostic reasoning. Specific emphasis is placed on building the student's semantic competence, constructing problem lists, comparing and contrasting similar diagnoses, constructing a summary statement, and formulating a prioritized differential diagnosis the student can defend. Several complementary methods of assessment are utilized across the curriculum. These include assessments of participation, knowledge, and application. The course leverages clinical faculty, graduate medical education trainees, and senior medical students as small group facilitators. Feedback from students and faculty consistently identifies the course as a highly effective and engaging way to teach clinical reasoning. CONCLUSION: Our Introduction to Clinical Reasoning course offers students repeated exposure to well-selected cases to promote their development of clinical reasoning. The course is an example of how clinical reasoning can be taught across the preclinical curriculum without extensive faculty training in medical education or clinical reasoning theory. The course can be adapted into different instructional formats to cover a variety of topics to provide the early learner with sequential exposure and practice in diagnostic reasoning.

Teaching Students How to Think: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Preclerkship Clinical Reasoning Instruction.

INTRODUCTION: An objective of undergraduate medical education is to teach students how to think like physicians through a process called clinical reasoning. Currently, clerkship directors often feel that students enter their clinical years with a marginal comprehension of clinical reasoning concepts; instruction in this area could be improved. Although there have been previous educational studies assessing curricular interventions to improve the instruction of clinical reasoning, it is not yet known what happens at an individual level between an instructor and a small group of students in the teaching of clinical reasoning. This research will identify how clinical reasoning is being taught in a longitudinal clinical reasoning course. METHODS: The Introduction to Clinical Reasoning course is a 15-month-long case-based course held in the preclinical curriculum of the USU. Individual sessions involve small-group learning with approximately seven students per group. Throughout the academic year of 2018-2019, 10 of these sessions were videotaped and transcribed. All participants provided informed consent. A thematic analysis was performed using a constant comparative approach. Transcripts were analyzed until thematic sufficiency was reached. RESULTS: Over 300 pages of text were analyzed; new themes ceased to be identified after the eighth session. Topics included obstetrics, general pediatric issues, jaundice, and chest pain; these sessions were taught either by attendings, fellows, or fourth-year medical students with attending supervision. The thematic analysis revealed themes associated with clinical reasoning processes, themes associated with knowledge organization, and a theme associated with clinical reasoning in the military. The clinical reasoning process themes included problem list construction and refinement, differential diagnosis, naming and defending a leading diagnosis, and clinical reasoning heuristics. The knowledge organization themes included illness script development and refinement and semantic competence. The final theme was military relevant care. CONCLUSIONS: In individual teaching sessions, preceptors emphasized problem lists, differential diagnoses, and leading diagnoses in a course designed to strengthen diagnostic reasoning in preclerkship medical students. The use of illness scripts was more often implicitly used rather than explicitly stated, and students used these sessions to use and apply new vocabularies related to a clinical presentation. Instruction in clinical reasoning could be improved by encouraging faculty to provide further context to their thinking, by encouraging the comparing and contrasting of illness scripts, and by using a shared vocabulary for clinical reasoning. Limitations of this study include that it was done in the context of a clinical reasoning course and that it was done at a military medical school, which may limit generalizability. Future studies could determine if faculty development could improve the frequency of references to the clinical reasoning processes that could improve student readiness for clerkship.

Clinical Reasoning Curricula in Preclinical Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Clinical reasoning is the process of observing, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting patient information to arrive at a diagnosis and management plan. Although clinical reasoning is foundational in undergraduate medical education (UME), the current literature lacks a clear picture of the clinical reasoning curriculum in preclinical phase of UME. This scoping review explores the mechanisms of clinical reasoning education in preclinical UME. METHOD: A scoping review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley framework methodology for scoping reviews and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: The initial database search identified 3,062 articles. Of these, 241 articles were selected for a full-text review. Twenty-one articles, each reporting a single clinical reasoning curriculum, were selected for inclusion. Six of the reports included a definition of clinical reasoning, and 7 explicitly reported the theory underlying the curriculum. Reports varied in the identification of clinical reasoning content domains and teaching strategies. Only 4 curricula reported assessment validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this scoping review, we recommend 5 key principles for educators to consider when reporting clinical reasoning curricula in preclinical UME: (1) explicitly define clinical reasoning within the report, (2) report clinical reasoning theory(ies) used in the development of the curriculum, (3) clearly identify which clinical reasoning domains are addressed in the curriculum, (4) report validity evidence for assessments when available, and (5) describe how the reported curriculum fits into the larger clinical reasoning education at the institution.

Characteristics of Highly Rated Internal Medicine Attendings Before and After the 2004 Work-Hour Restrictions.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of top-rated Internal Medicine attendings and whether they changed after implementation of the 2004 work-hour restrictions. METHODS: Mixed methods study of resident ratings of medicine attendings (Period 1: 1994-1996, n = 250 and Period 2: 2007-2009, n = 152). Residents evaluated 17 attending characteristics. The top 25% of "overall" ratings were classified as "highly rated." Two free-text questions included "What was your attending's best characteristic?" and "How could your attending best improve?" and were coded in duplicate, using grounded qualitative methods. RESULTS: There were no differences in the characteristics of highly rated attendings in the two time periods. Characteristics associated with being a top-rated attending included enthusiasm (odds ratio [OR]: 5.69, 2.78-11.67), balanced teaching style (OR: 3.63, 1.64-8.02), promoting independent thinking (OR: 2.90, 0.96-8.74), fund of knowledge (OR: 2.73, 1.13-6.58), and time management (OR: 1.78, 1.14-2.80). Among the 1,410 utterances, valued attending attributes included helpfulness, promoting independent thinking, and having strong medical knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics valued by residents in attendings did not change over time despite a major structural change in work hours and patterns of teaching. These valued characteristics continue to be a strong general fund of knowledge, enthusiasm for teaching, and balance between didactic and bedside approaches.

Electronic health records improve clinical note quality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, clinical management, and its used for administrative purposes. Electronic health records (EHRs) are being implemented in clinical practices throughout the USA yet it is not known whether they improve the quality of clinical notes. The goal in this study was to determine if EHRs improve the quality of outpatient clinical notes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A five and a half year longitudinal retrospective multicenter quantitative study comparing the quality of handwritten and electronic outpatient clinical visit notes for 100 patients with type 2 diabetes at three time points: 6 months prior to the introduction of the EHR (before-EHR), 6 months after the introduction of the EHR (after-EHR), and 5 years after the introduction of the EHR (5-year-EHR). QNOTE, a validated quantitative instrument, was used to assess the quality of outpatient clinical notes. Its scores can range from a low of 0 to a high of 100. Sixteen primary care physicians with active practices used QNOTE to determine the quality of the 300 patient notes. RESULTS: The before-EHR, after-EHR, and 5-year-EHR grand mean scores (SD) were 52.0 (18.4), 61.2 (16.3), and 80.4 (8.9), respectively, and the change in scores for before-EHR to after-EHR and before-EHR to 5-year-EHR were 18% (p<0.0001) and 55% (p<0.0001), respectively. All the element and grand mean quality scores significantly improved over the 5-year time interval. CONCLUSIONS: The EHR significantly improved the overall quality of the outpatient clinical note and the quality of all its elements, including the core and non-core elements. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that the EHR significantly improves the quality of clinical notes.

QNOTE: an instrument for measuring the quality of EHR clinical notes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The outpatient clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, and patient management, yet there is currently no validated instrument to measure the quality of the electronic clinical note. This study evaluated the validity of the QNOTE instrument, which assesses 12 elements in the clinical note, for measuring the quality of clinical notes. It also compared its performance with a global instrument that assesses the clinical note as a whole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter blinded study of the clinical notes of 100 outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had been seen in clinic on at least three occasions. The 300 notes were rated by eight general internal medicine and eight family medicine practicing physicians. The QNOTE instrument scored the quality of the note as the sum of a set of 12 note element scores, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The Global instrument scored the note in its entirety, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the Fleiss κ. RESULTS: The overall QNOTE inter-rater agreement was 0.82 (CI 0.80 to 0.84), and its note quality score was 65 (CI 64 to 66). The Global inter-rater agreement was 0.24 (CI 0.19 to 0.29), and its note quality score was 52 (CI 49 to 55). The QNOTE quality scores were consistent, and the overall QNOTE score was significantly higher than the overall Global score (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found the QNOTE to be a valid instrument for evaluating the quality of electronic clinical notes, and its performance was superior to that of the Global instrument.

Effect of financial remuneration on specialty choice of fourth-year U.S. medical students.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether financial incentives could reverse the trend of declining interest in primary care specialties among U.S. medical students. METHOD: An electronic survey was sent to all U.S. fourth-year MD and DO medical students in 2009 with a Department of Defense service obligation. Students not selecting a primary care residency were asked if a hypothetical bonus paid before and after residency or an increase in annual salary of attendings in primary care specialties would have resulted in these students selecting primary care. Logistic regression was used to determine student characteristics associated with accepting a financial incentive. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56% (447/797). Sixty-six percent of students did not apply for a primary care residency. Of these, 30% would have applied for primary care if they had been given a median bonus of $27,500 (interquartile range [IQR] $15,000-$50,000) before and after residency. Forty-one percent of students would have considered applying for primary care for a median military annual salary after residency of $175,000 (IQR $150,000-$200,000). Students who considered primary care but chose a controllable lifestyle specialty (e.g., radiology) were nearly four times more likely to name an influential hypothetical salary than were students who did not consider primary care and chose a noncontrollable lifestyle specialty (e.g., surgery) (67% versus 17%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: U.S. medical students, particularly those considering primary care but selecting controllable lifestyle specialties, are more likely to consider applying for a primary care specialty if provided a financial incentive.