Ralph Pinnock1, Megan Anakin1, Julie Lawrence2, Helen Chignell3, Tim Wilkinson3. 1. a Medical Education Unit , The Office of the Dean , Dunedin , New Zealand. 2. b Department of Women's and Children's Health , University of Otago , Dunedin , New Zealand. 3. c Faculty of Medicine , University of Otago , Christchurch , New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that students at different levels of training may benefit from different methods of learning clinical reasoning. Two of the common methods of teaching are the "whole - case" format and the "serial cue" approach. There is little empirical evidence to guide teachers as to which method to use and when to introduce them. METHODS: We observed 23 students from different stages of training to examine how they were taking a history and how they were thinking whilst doing this. Each student interviewed a simulated patient who presented with a straightforward and a complex presentation. We inferred how students were reasoning from how they took a history and how they described their thinking while doing this. RESULTS: Early in their training students can only take a generic history. Only later in training are they able to take a focused history, remember the information they have gathered, use it to seek further specific information, compare and contrast possibilities and analyze their data as they are collecting it. CONCLUSIONS: Early in their training students are unable to analyze data during history taking. When they have started developing illness scripts, they are able to benefit from the "serial cue" approach of teaching clinical reasoning.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that students at different levels of training may benefit from different methods of learning clinical reasoning. Two of the common methods of teaching are the "whole - case" format and the "serial cue" approach. There is little empirical evidence to guide teachers as to which method to use and when to introduce them. METHODS: We observed 23 students from different stages of training to examine how they were taking a history and how they were thinking whilst doing this. Each student interviewed a simulated patient who presented with a straightforward and a complex presentation. We inferred how students were reasoning from how they took a history and how they described their thinking while doing this. RESULTS: Early in their training students can only take a generic history. Only later in training are they able to take a focused history, remember the information they have gathered, use it to seek further specific information, compare and contrast possibilities and analyze their data as they are collecting it. CONCLUSIONS: Early in their training students are unable to analyze data during history taking. When they have started developing illness scripts, they are able to benefit from the "serial cue" approach of teaching clinical reasoning.