Assessing clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical students during history taking with an empirically derived scale for clinical reasoning indicators

Abstract

Background The clinical reasoning process, which requires biomedical knowledge, knowledge about problem-solving strategies, and knowledge about reasons for diagnostic procedures, is a key element of physicians’ daily practice but difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to empirically develop a Clinical Reasoning Indicators-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) and to assess the clinical reasoning ability of advanced medical students during a simulation involving history taking. Methods The Clinical Reasoning Indictors-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) including a 5-point Likert scale for assessment was designed from clinical reasoning indicators identified in a qualitative study in 2017. To assess indicators of clinical reasoning ability, 65 advanced medical students (semester 10, n = 25 versus final year, n = 40) from three medical schools participated in a 360-degree competence assessment in the role of beginning residents during a simulated first workday in hospital. This assessment included a consultation hour with five simulated patients which was videotaped. Videos of 325 patient consultations were assessed using the CRI-HT-S. A factor analysis was conducted and the students’ results were compared according to their advancement in undergraduate medical training. Results The clinical reasoning indicators of the CRI-HT-S loaded on three factors relevant for clinical reasoning: 1) focusing questions, 2) creating context, and 3) securing information. Students reached significantly different scores (p < .001) for the three factors (factor 1: 4.07 ± .47, factor 2: 3.72 ± .43, factor 3: 2.79 ± .83). Students in semester 10 reached significantly lower scores for factor 3 than students in their final year (p < .05). Conclusions The newly developed CRI-HT-S worked well for quantitative assessment of clinical reasoning indicators during history taking. Its three-factored structure helped to explore different aspects of clinical reasoning. Whether the CRI-HT-S has the potential to be used as a scale in objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) or in workplace-based assessments of clinical reasoning has to be investigated in further studies with larger student cohorts.

A survey on the willingness of outpatients to participate in fundus examination procedures conducted by ophthalmology training residents in China: A cross‐sectional study

“…In mainland China, the standardized training system for ophthalmology residents was established relatively late, resulting in a notable gap compared to developed nations. Increased commercialization and reduced consultation time between patients and doctors have limited the time available for training faculty to teach in hospital outpatient clinics 9 . To ensure high‐quality completion of standardized residency training in ophthalmology for fundus diseases, a comprehensive assessment system is imperative.…”

Assessing data gathering of chatbot based symptom checkers - a clinical vignettes study

“…The task of performing a relevant and efficient medical interview requires clinical reasoning skills; these skills are very resource demanding and require years of training and experience before they can be mastered by human clinicians [45] , [46] . Moreover, tremendous variability exists between physicians, depending on their knowledge, beliefs, experience, and training [45] , [47] ; this variability can even exist within the same practitioner on a case to case basis, depending on context [48] , [49] , [50] . A virtual intake-oriented tool that can competently perform a high-quality medical interview in a consistent manner, and provide a relevant summary to the doctor, could reduce the workload of practitioners and allow them to focus on the task of clinical decision-making.…”

Development and pilot test of ComCare – a questionnaire for quick assessment of communicative and social competences in medical students after interviews with simulated patients

“…The highest correlation with students’ general satisfaction in ComCareD was with the item “comprehensibly explaining the next steps of diagnostics and treatment”. In the debriefing of our assessment students report a lack of medical knowledge during the consulting hour (data not shown) and deficits in clinical reasoning skills during history taking have been identified [ 66 ]. Recognizing these deficits which could have led to lower scores for the item “comprehensibly explaining the next steps of diagnostics and treatment” might be a reason for the low scores in general satisfaction because health care and medical students grow up in a culture where they ‘learn’ to hide their personal deficits in knowledge [ 67 ].…”