Development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity in clinical teachers via distance learning: a mixed methods study.

Clinical reasoning is the cornerstone to healthcare practice and teaching it appropriately is of utmost importance. Yet there is little formal training for clinical supervisors in supervising this reasoning process. Distance education provides interesting opportunities for continuous professional development of healthcare professionals. This mixed methods study aimed at gaining in-depth understanding about whether and how clinical teachers can develop complex pedagogical competencies through participation in a Massive Open Online Course on the supervision of clinical reasoning (MOOC SCR). Participants self-assed their clinical supervision skills before and after partaking in the MOOC SCR through the Maastricht Clinical Teachers Questionnaire. Item scores and the distribution of response proportions before and after participation were compared using paired t-tests and McNemar's tests respectively. In parallel, the evolution of a subset of MOOC participants' pedagogical practice and posture was explored via semi-structured interviews throughout and beyond their MOOC participation using simulated and personal situational recalls. The verbatim were analysed with standard thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative findings converged and their integration demonstrated that partaking in the MOOC SCR promoted the development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity with the participants. This was quantitatively evidenced by significantly higher self-assessed supervision skills and corresponding attitudes after completing the MOOC. The qualitative data provided rich descriptions of how this progression in pedagogical practice and posture occurred in the field and how it was shaped by participants' interaction with the MOOC's content and their motivations to progress. Our findings provide evidence for the development of pedagogical skills and corresponding attitudes for the supervision of clinical reasoning through participation in the MOOC SCR and contribute to the literature body on the opportunities that distance learning provides for the development of pedagogical competencies. The extent to which the pedagogical underpinnings of the MOOC contributed to these developments remains to be determined.

Multimorbidity and clinical reasoning through the eyes of GPs: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the high prevalence of patients suffering from multimorbidity, the clinical reasoning processes involved during the longitudinal management are still sparse.This study aimed to investigate what are the different characteristics of the clinical reasoning process clinicians use with patients suffering from multimorbidity, and to what extent this clinical reasoning differs from diagnostic reasoning. DESIGN: Given the exploratory nature of this study and the difficulty general practitioners (GPs) have in expressing their reasoning, a qualitative methodology was therefore, chosen. The Clinical reasoning Model described by Charlin et al was used as a framework to describe the multifaceted processes of the clinical reasoning. SETTING: Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine GPs working in an ambulatory setting in June to September 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were GPs who came from public hospital or private practice. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The results highlighted how some cognitive processes seem to be more specific to the management reasoning.Thus, the main goal is not to reach a diagnosis, but rather to consider several possibilities in order to maintain a balance between the evidence-based care options, patient's priorities and maintaining quality of life. The initial representation of the current problem seems to be more related to the importance of establishing links between the different pre-existing diseases, identifying opportunities for actions and trying to integrate the new elements from the patient's context, rather than identifying the signs and symptoms that can lead to generating new clinical hypotheses. The multiplicity of options to resolve problems is often perceived as difficult by GPs. Furthermore, longitudinal management does not allow them to achieve a final resolution of problems and that requires continuous review and an ongoing prioritisation process. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to a better understanding of the clinical reasoning processes of GPs in the longitudinal management of patients suffering from multimorbidity. Through a practical and accessible model, this qualitative study offers new perspectives for identifying the components of management reasoning. These results open the path to new research projects.

Understanding GPs' clinical reasoning processes involved in managing patients suffering from multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research.

BACKGROUND: Most consultations in primary care involve patients suffering from multimorbidity. Nevertheless, few studies exist on the clinical reasoning processes of general practitioners (GPs) during the follow-up of these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise published evidence on how GPs reason and make decisions when managing patients with multimorbidity in the long term. METHODS: A search of the relevant literature from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases was conducted in June 2019. The search terms were selected from five domains: primary care, clinical reasoning, chronic disease, multimorbidity, and issues of multimorbidity. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English and French were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: A total of 2 165 abstracts and 362 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Results showcased that GPs' clinical reasoning during the long-term management of multimorbidity is about setting intermediate goals of care in an ongoing process that adapts to the patients' constant evolution and contributes to preserve their quality of life. In the absence of guidelines adapted to multimorbidity, there is no single correct plan, but competing priorities and unavoidable uncertainties. Thus, GPs have to consider and weigh multiple factors simultaneously. In the context of multimorbidity, GPs describe their reasoning as essentially intuitive and seem to perceive it as less accurate. These clinical reasoning processes are nevertheless more analytical as they might think and rooted in deep knowledge of the individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Although the challenges GPs are facing in the long-term follow-up of patients suffering from multimorbidity are increasingly known, the literature currently offers limited information about GPs' clinical reasoning processes at play. GPs tend to underestimate the complexity and richness of their clinical reasoning, which may negatively impact their practice and their teaching.

Interventions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners with academic difficulties: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 56.

Background: Clinical teachers often struggle to report unsatisfactory trainee performance, partly because of a lack of evidence-based remediation options. Objectives: To identify interventions for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical learners experiencing academic difficulties, link them to a theory-based framework and provide literature-based recommendations around their use. Methods: This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Education Source and PsycINFO (1990-2016) combining these concepts: medical education, professional competence/difficulty and educational support. Original research/innovation reports describing intervention(s) for UG/PG medical learners with academic difficulties were included. Data extraction employed Michie's Behavior Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy and program evaluation models from Stufflebeam and Kirkpatrick. Quality appraisal used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The authors synthesized extracted evidence by adapting the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations. Results: Sixty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, most commonly addressing knowledge (66.2%), skills (53.9%) and attitudinal problems (26.2%), or learner personal issues (41.5%). The most common BCTs were Shaping knowledge, Feedback/monitoring, and Repetition/substitution. Quality appraisal was variable (MMAT 0-100%). A thematic content analysis identified 109 interventions (UG: n = 84, PG: n = 58), providing 24 strong, 48 moderate, 26 weak and 11 very weak recommendations. Conclusion: This review provides a repertoire of literature-based interventions for teaching/learning, faculty development, and research purposes.

Clinical reasoning processes: unravelling complexity through graphical representation.

CONTEXT: Clinical reasoning is a core skill in medical practice, but remains notoriously difficult for students to grasp and teachers to nurture. To date, an accepted model that adequately captures the complexity of clinical reasoning processes does not exist. Knowledge-modelling software such as mot Plus (Modelling using Typified Objects [MOT]) may be exploited to generate models capable of unravelling some of this complexity. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to create a comprehensive generic model of clinical reasoning processes that is intended for use by teachers and learners, and to provide data on the validity of the model. METHODS: Using a participatory action research method and the established modelling software (mot Plus), knowledge was extracted and entered into the model by a cognitician in a series of encounters with a group of experienced clinicians over more than 250 contact hours. The model was then refined through an iterative validation process involving the same group of doctors, after which other groups of clinicians were asked to solve a clinical problem involving simulated patients. RESULTS: A hierarchical model depicting the multifaceted processes of clinical reasoning was produced. Validation rounds suggested generalisability across disciplines and situations. CONCLUSIONS: The MOT model of clinical reasoning processes has potentially important applications for use within undergraduate and graduate medical curricula to inform teaching, learning and assessment. Specifically, it could be used to support curricular development because it can help to identify opportune moments for learning specific elements of clinical reasoning. It could also be used to precisely identify and remediate reasoning errors in students, residents and practising doctors with persistent difficulties in clinical reasoning.