Clinical Reasoning Assessment in Portuguese Medical Schools
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical reasoning is essential for medical practice. Assessing this competency in undergraduate education plays a vital role in preventing medical error; hence, it should be conducted with basis on the best international practices. However, knowledge regarding the assessment of clinical reasoning in Portuguese medical schools is currently limited. This study aims to deepen the current understanding of clinical reasoning assessment in Portugal by analyzing the prevalence of various common assessment methods and identifying their main associated barriers. Materials and Methods: A survey was administered between May to July 2023 to all faculty members responsible for curricular units in the senior years of the Medical Integrated Master's degree in Portugal. The SPSS® software, version 28.0 for Microsoft Windows®, was used. Data was predominantly analyzed through descriptive statistics. Results: 75 responses were collected from 8 medical schools in Portugal, representing roughly half of the target population. The majority of faculty members have over 30 years of experience in assessment. Multiple-choice questions is the most used method of assessment. Methods applied in simulated and clinical environments, particularly the direct observation, were perceived to be in considerable deficit in the curricula. The main identified barriers include lack of faculty time and human resources. Conclusions: There is a need for an increased implementation of methods in simulated and clinical environments, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of clinical reasoning. In order to achieve this, more investment in human resources is pivotal, namely by increasing faculty recruitment and promoting more training courses on clinical reasoning assessment.
Downloads
Metrics
-
Abstract170
-
pdf (Español (España))155
-
pdf155
References
Kononowicz AA, Hege I, Edelbring S, Sobocan M, Huwendiek S, Durning SJ. The need for longitudinal clinical reasoning teaching and assessment: Results of an international survey. Med Teach. 2020;42(4):457–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708293
Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, Holmboe E, Santen SA, Lang V, et al. Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance. Acad Med. 2019;94(6):902–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618
Thampy H, Willert E, Ramani S. Assessing Clinical Reasoning: Targeting the Higher Levels of the Pyramid. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(8):1631–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05593-4
ten Cate O. Introduction. Em: Principles and Reasoning based Clinical Practice of Case-Education; ten Cate O, Eugène JFM, Custers Steven J, Eds.; Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 3–20.
WHO: Patient Safety. Disponível online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety (visitado a 29 out 2023)
Gold JG, Knight CL, Christner JG, Mooney CE, Manthey DE, Lang VJ. Clinical reasoning education in the clerkship years: A cross-disciplinary national needs assessment. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273250
Rencic J, Trowbridge RL, Fagan M, Szauter K, Durning S. Clinical Reasoning Education at US Medical Schools: Results from a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(11):1242–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4159-y
Gordon D, Rencic JJ, Lang VJ, Thomas A, Young M, Durning SJ. Advancing the assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions: Definitional and methodologic recommendations. Perspect Med Educ. 2022;11(2):108–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00701-3
Cooper N, Bartlett M, Gay S, Hammond A, Lillicrap M, Matthan J, et al. Consensus statement on the content of clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2021;43(2):152–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1842343
Artino AR, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):463–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2ª ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
van der Vleuten C, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, Govaerts MJB, Heeneman S. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach. 2015; 37(7):641–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.973388
van der Vleuten C, van den Eertwegh V, Giroldi E. Assessment of communication skills. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(11):2110–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.007
Cooke S, Lemay JF. Transforming Medical Assessment: Integrating Uncertainty Into the Evaluation of Clinical Reasoning in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2017;92(6):746-751. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001559
Hodges B. Assessment in the post-psychometric era: Learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):564–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.789134
Pordata: Estatísticas sobre Portugal e Europa. Disponível em: www.epa.gov%0Awww.bt.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/index.asp (visitado a 13 fev 2024)
Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. Disponível em: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9a48414c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9a48414c-en (visitado a 13 fev 2024)
Copyright (c) 2024 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The works published in this magazine are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) preserves the economic rights (copyright) of the published works and favors and allows them to be reused under the use license indicated in point 2.
2. The works are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 license.
3. Self-archiving conditions. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate electronically the pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version evaluated and accepted for publication) of their works before publication , since it favors its circulation and earlier diffusion and with it a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.
