Literature DB >> 15612906

What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning.

Kevin W Eva1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: One of the core tasks assigned to clinical teachers is to enable students to sort through a cluster of features presented by a patient and accurately assign a diagnostic label, with the development of an appropriate treatment strategy being the end goal. Over the last 30 years there has been considerable debate within the health sciences education literature regarding the model that best describes how expert clinicians generate diagnostic decisions.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this essay is to provide a review of the research literature on clinical reasoning for frontline clinical teachers. The strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to clinical reasoning will be examined using one of the core divides between various models (that of analytic (i.e. conscious/controlled) versus non-analytic (i.e. unconscious/automatic) reasoning strategies) as an orienting framework. DISCUSSION: Recent work suggests that clinical teachers should stress the importance of both forms of reasoning, thereby enabling students to marshal reasoning processes in a flexible and context-specific manner. Specific implications are drawn from this overview for clinical teachers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15612906     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  136 in total

1.  Brief report: beyond clinical experience: features of data collection and interpretation that contribute to diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Mathieu R Nendaz; Anne M Gut; Arnaud Perrier; Martine Louis-Simonet; Katherine Blondon-Choa; François R Herrmann; Alain F Junod; Nu V Vu
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Taking the stress out of morning report: an analytic approach to the differential diagnosis.

Authors:  Adrian G Sacher; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Revalidating Sherlock Holmes for a role in medical education.

Authors:  David Levine
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  What do physicians gain (and lose) with experience? Qualitative results from a cross-national study of diabetes.

Authors:  Emily A Elstad; Karen E Lutfey; Lisa D Marceau; Stephen M Campbell; Olaf von dem Knesebeck; John B McKinlay
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Exercises in clinical reasoning: a confusing interaction.

Authors:  Urvi A Shah; Mark C Henderson; Paul Abourjaily; David Thaler; Joseph Rencic
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Exploring Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Test-Taking Behaviors During Clinical Vignette Style Multiple-Choice Examinations: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Brian Sanjay Heist; Jed David Gonzalo; Steven Durning; Dario Torre; David Michael Elnicki
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2014-12

7.  Keeping a Flexible Differential Diagnosis: an Exercise in Clinical Reasoning.

Authors:  Paul A Bergl; Reza Manesh; Donald Basel; Andrew P J Olson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Sex Differences in Symptom Phenotypes Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  John E Brush; Harlan M Krumholz; Erich J Greene; Rachel P Dreyer
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-02-17

9.  Diagnostic thinking and information used in clinical decision-making: a qualitative study of expert and student dental clinicians.

Authors:  Gerardo Maupomé; Stuart Schrader; Saurabh Mannan; Lawrence Garetto; Hafsteinn Eggertsson
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.757

10.  Students' perceptions about the transition to the clinical phase of a medical curriculum with preclinical patient contacts; a focus group study.

Authors:  Merijn B Godefrooij; Agnes D Diemers; Albert J J A Scherpbier
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-04-05       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.