Display options
Share it on

MedEdPORTAL. 2017 Nov 06;13:10650. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10650.

Diagnosing and Remediating Clinical Reasoning Difficulties: A Faculty Development Workshop.

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources

Adam Weinstein, Shanu Gupta, Roshini Pinto-Powell, Jennifer Jackson, Joel Appel, Danielle Roussel, Michelle Daniel

Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and Medical Education, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
  2. Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine, Rush Medical College of Rush University Medical Center.
  3. Associate Professor, Internal Medicine and Medical Education, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
  4. Associate Professor, Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.
  5. Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine.
  6. Associate Professor, Anesthesiology, University of Utah School of Medicine.
  7. Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School.

PMID: 30800851 PMCID: PMC6338136 DOI: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10650

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning is a complex cognitive process that involves multiple steps. Diagnosing and remediating clinical reasoning difficulties requires faculty to have an understanding of the cognitive theory behind clinical reasoning, familiarity with terminology, and a framework to identify different domains of struggle in their learners. Published resources on faculty development to diagnose and remediate clinical reasoning difficulties are limited. We created and implemented a workshop to assist faculty in developing these skills based on the five-domain framework described by Audétat, Laurin, and Sanche. This workshop provides all the materials needed to replicate this training with faculty at other institutions.

METHODS: The workshop consists of a didactic component and case-based active learning in small groups. Each case focuses on different domains of clinical reasoning difficulties and targets different learner levels (preclinical medical students through residents). The workshop was given in multiple venues in 2016 and 2017.

RESULTS: Participants reported the session was valuable (4.71/5.0), the facilitators were effective (4.5/5.0), and the objectives were met (4.28/5.0). They highlighted the strengths of the interactive format, the framework to diagnose and remediate clinical reasoning difficulties, and the excellent take-home resources. They suggested more time for the workshop, revision of cases to better highlight difficulties, and refinement of instructions to approach the cases. These suggestions were incorporated into the current iteration of the workshop.

DISCUSSION: We successfully implemented a workshop for diagnosing and remediating clinical reasoning difficulties in multiple venues. The sessions were diverse in terms of faculty participants and learner groups addressed.

Keywords: Clinical Reasoning; Faculty Development; Illness Script; Problem Representation; Semantic Qualifiers

Conflict of interest statement

None to report.

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 27;368(26):2445-8 - PubMed
  2. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii58-ii64 - PubMed
  3. Pediatrics. 2012 Nov;130(5):795-7 - PubMed
  4. Acad Med. 2009 Aug;84(8):1022-8 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 23;355(21):2217-25 - PubMed
  6. Med Educ. 2015 Jul;49(7):656-7 - PubMed
  7. Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1117-21 - PubMed
  8. Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):775-80 - PubMed
  9. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii65-ii72 - PubMed
  10. Med Educ. 2005 Apr;39(4):418-27 - PubMed
  11. Med Teach. 2013;35(3):e984-9 - PubMed
  12. Med Educ Online. 2011 Mar 14;16: - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types