Dataset Information

Clinical reasoning – an approach for decision-making in education and training for biomedical scientists.

ABSTRACT: Aim: Explicitly addressing clinical reasoning (CR) is seen as a promising opportunity in the teaching of the biomedical sciences to enable students to acquire the skills to meet the challenges posed by ever more complex health care processes. The quality of diagnostic decisions plays an essential role here. Our aim is to examine if biomedical scientists recognize the practical relevance of CR and are able to apply it as a reflective framework for their professional practice.Method: In two different educational settings, biomedical science students were asked to look closely at CR in the context of the degree program and to indentify the different forms of reasoning used in their internships and professional practice. The written descriptions were analyzed for content and discussed in the seminars.Results: In both scenarios, the analyses of the students’ descriptions and discussions showed that examining the different forms of CR helped to raise conscious awareness of thought and decision-making processes, encouraging students to think critically about them and to articulate insights about them, as well as recognize the importance of different reasoning strategies when making specific medical decisions.Conclusion: CR for biomedical scientists could help make decision-making processes visible for other occupational groups and thus advantageously integrate specific professional expertise into health care.Over the long term, an interdisciplinary focus on CR could foster and promote the development of a shared discourse and interprofessional collaboration.

SUBMITTER: Homberg A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6905367 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients' health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.Materials and methodsThis study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.ResultsFollowing analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).DiscussionThis demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.

Project description:BackgroundUsing malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated.MethodsIn the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0-1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA.ResultsThere were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions.ConclusionThe similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners.

Dataset Information

Clinical reasoning – an approach for decision-making in education and training for biomedical scientists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets