PURPOSE: The oral case presentation is an essential part of clinical medicine, but teaching medical students to present clinical data remains difficult. Presentation skills depend on the ability to obtain, process, and organize patient data. Clinical reasoning is fundamental to the development of these skills. We compared a clinical reasoning curriculum with standard ward instruction for improving presentation skills and clinical performance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between October 1998 and May 1999, 62 third-year medical students at three hospitals were assigned to a 4-week clinical reasoning curriculum (n = 27) or a control group (n = 35) that underwent routine instruction. The curriculum consisted of four 1-hour group sessions and 1 hour of individual videotaped instruction, and taught students to use the principles of clinical reasoning, such as generation and refinement of diagnostic hypothesis, interpretation of diagnostic tests, and causal reasoning, to determine data for inclusion in the oral presentation. We videotaped students presenting two standardized case histories; one at baseline and a second 4 weeks later. Two independent evaluators who were blinded to the group assignments reviewed the videotapes and scored them for presentation quality and efficiency, and general speaking ability. RESULTS:Mean (+/- SD) presentation times at baseline were similar in the two groups (intervention group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; control group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; P = 0.74). Presentation time in students who were taught clinical reasoning decreased by 3 +/- 2 minutes, but increased by 2 +/- 2 minutes in control students. The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3 to 5 minutes; P <0.001). Presentation quality scores at baseline were similar in both groups (intervention group: 17 +/- 8 points; control group: 20 +/- 7 points; P = 0.11). Students who were taught the clinical reasoning curriculum had an improvement of 9 +/- 6 points in the quality of their presentations, while control students had an improvement of 2 +/- 7 points (on a scale of 4-36). The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 points; 95% CI: 1 to 7 points; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A clinical reasoning curriculum, in combination with video-based individual instruction, improves the efficiency and quality of oral presentations, and may augment clinical performance.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The oral case presentation is an essential part of clinical medicine, but teaching medical students to present clinical data remains difficult. Presentation skills depend on the ability to obtain, process, and organize patient data. Clinical reasoning is fundamental to the development of these skills. We compared a clinical reasoning curriculum with standard ward instruction for improving presentation skills and clinical performance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between October 1998 and May 1999, 62 third-year medical students at three hospitals were assigned to a 4-week clinical reasoning curriculum (n = 27) or a control group (n = 35) that underwent routine instruction. The curriculum consisted of four 1-hour group sessions and 1 hour of individual videotaped instruction, and taught students to use the principles of clinical reasoning, such as generation and refinement of diagnostic hypothesis, interpretation of diagnostic tests, and causal reasoning, to determine data for inclusion in the oral presentation. We videotaped students presenting two standardized case histories; one at baseline and a second 4 weeks later. Two independent evaluators who were blinded to the group assignments reviewed the videotapes and scored them for presentation quality and efficiency, and general speaking ability. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) presentation times at baseline were similar in the two groups (intervention group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; control group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; P = 0.74). Presentation time in students who were taught clinical reasoning decreased by 3 +/- 2 minutes, but increased by 2 +/- 2 minutes in control students. The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3 to 5 minutes; P <0.001). Presentation quality scores at baseline were similar in both groups (intervention group: 17 +/- 8 points; control group: 20 +/- 7 points; P = 0.11). Students who were taught the clinical reasoning curriculum had an improvement of 9 +/- 6 points in the quality of their presentations, while control students had an improvement of 2 +/- 7 points (on a scale of 4-36). The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 points; 95% CI: 1 to 7 points; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A clinical reasoning curriculum, in combination with video-based individual instruction, improves the efficiency and quality of oral presentations, and may augment clinical performance.
Authors: Eric H Green; Steven J Durning; Linda DeCherrie; Mark J Fagan; Bradley Sharpe; Warren Hershman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Simon Buczacki; Joseph Shalhoub; Peter M George; Laura M Vearncombe; Patrick D Byrne; William Alazawi Journal: JRSM Short Rep Date: 2011-08-17