Dataset Information

A Virtual Clinical Reasoning Case for Medical Students Using an Ophthalmology Model: A Case of Red Eye.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education has moved online, tasking medical educators with developing virtual learning experiences. This is particularly challenging for less-represented disciplines, such as ophthalmology. We designed a red eye clinical reasoning case for preclinical medical students, which can be delivered virtually, using video conference software.

Methods

We developed a 90-minute red eye/clinical reasoning workshop for which prereading was assigned to students. We then delivered a virtual development session to nonophthalmologist copreceptors and provided a session faculty guide. The entire first-year medical student class (No. = 140) participated in one of four identical workshops, which included virtual small- and large-group discussions. Students completed a knowledge pre- and posttest, and an optional session postsurvey.

Results

Knowledge gains from pretest (No. = 94) to posttest (No. = 73) were statistically significant (p < .05), with average scores improving from 57% to 70%. Overall, students were satisfied, rating the following items 4 or 5 out of 5: session (86%, No. = 31), virtual format (83%, No. = 30), and if they recommended future use (69%, No. = 35).

Discussion

This novel, virtual clinical reasoning case simulated small- and large-group learning, achieved knowledge gains, and was well received by students. Minor technical challenges were encountered but successfully remedied, without apparent disruption to learning. This virtual medical education model can be used to enhance ophthalmology education in preclinical medical students and can be adapted for virtual design of other curricular content.

SUBMITTER: Chadha N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970637 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Virtual Clinical Reasoning Case for Medical Students Using an Ophthalmology Model: A Case of Red Eye.

Chadha Nisha N Fredrick Douglas D Malbari Alefiyah A Hojsak Joanne J

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20210304

<h4>Introduction</h4>Triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education has moved online, tasking medical educators with developing virtual learning experiences. This is particularly challenging for less-represented disciplines, such as ophthalmology. We designed a red eye clinical reasoning case for preclinical medical students, which can be delivered virtually, using video conference software.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a 90-minute red eye/clinical reasoning workshop for which prereading w ...[more]

PMID: 33768149

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImproving clinical reasoning skills-the thought processes used by clinicians to formulate appropriate questions and diagnoses-is essential for reducing missed diagnostic opportunities. The electronic Clinical Reasoning Educational Simulation Tool (eCREST) was developed to improve the clinical reasoning of future physicians. A feasibility trial demonstrated acceptability and potential impacts; however, the processes by which students gathered data were unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the data gathering patterns of final year medical students while using eCREST and how eCREST influences the patterns.MethodsA mixed methods design was used. A trial of eCREST across 3 UK medical schools (N=148) measured the potential effects of eCREST on data gathering. A qualitative think-aloud and semistructured interview study with 16 medical students from one medical school identified 3 data gathering strategies: Thorough, Focused, and Succinct. Some had no strategy. Reanalysis of the trial data identified the prevalence of data gathering patterns and compared patterns between the intervention and control groups. Patterns were identified based on 2 variables that were measured in a patient case 1 month after the intervention: the proportion of Essential information students identified and the proportion of irrelevant information gathered (Relevant). Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Essential but in the lowest quartile for Relevant displayed a Thorough pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles for Relevant but in the lowest quartile for Essential displayed a Succinct pattern. Those who scored in the top 3 quartiles on both variables displayed a Focused pattern. Those whose scores were in the lowest quartile on both variables displayed a Nonspecific pattern.ResultsThe trial results indicated that students in the intervention group were more thorough than those in the control groups when gathering data. The qualitative data identified data gathering strategies and the mechanisms by which eCREST influenced data gathering. Students reported that eCREST promoted thoroughness by prompting them to continuously reflect and allowing them to practice managing uncertainty. However, some found eCREST to be less useful, and they randomly gathered information. Reanalysis of the trial data revealed that the intervention group was significantly more likely to display a Thorough data gathering pattern than controls (21/78, 27% vs 6/70, 9%) and less likely to display a Succinct pattern (13/78, 17% vs 20/70, 29%; χ23=9.9; P=.02). Other patterns were similar across groups.ConclusionsQualitative data suggested that students applied a range of data gathering strategies while using eCREST and that eCREST encouraged thoroughness by continuously prompting the students to reflect and manage their uncertainty. Trial data suggested that eCREST led students to demonstrate more Thorough data gathering patterns. Virtual patients that encourage thoroughness could help future physicians avoid missed diagnostic opportunities and enhance the delivery of clinical reasoning teaching.

Project description:BackgroundUse of virtual patient educational tools could fill the current gap in the teaching of clinical reasoning skills. However, there is a limited understanding of their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence to understand the effectiveness of virtual patient tools aimed at improving undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO from 1990 to January 2022, to identify all experimental articles testing the effectiveness of virtual patient educational tools on medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Quality of the articles was assessed using an adapted form of the MERSQI and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis summarised intervention features, how virtual patient tools were evaluated and reported effectiveness.ResultsThe search revealed 8,186 articles, with 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Average study quality was moderate (M = 6.5, SD = 2.7), with nearly half not reporting any measurement of validity or reliability for their clinical reasoning outcome measure (8/19, 42%). Eleven articles found a positive effect of virtual patient tools on reasoning (11/19, 58%). Four reported no significant effect and four reported mixed effects (4/19, 21%). Several domains of clinical reasoning were evaluated. Data gathering, ideas about diagnosis and patient management were more often found to improve after virtual patient use (34/47 analyses, 72%) than application of knowledge, flexibility in thinking and problem-solving (3/7 analyses, 43%).ConclusionsUsing virtual patient tools could effectively complement current teaching especially if opportunities for face-to-face teaching or other methods are limited, as there was some evidence that virtual patient educational tools can improve undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Evaluations that measured more case specific clinical reasoning domains, such as data gathering, showed more consistent improvement than general measures like problem-solving. Case specific measures might be more sensitive to change given the context dependent nature of clinical reasoning. Consistent use of validated clinical reasoning measures is needed to enable a meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness.

Project description:PurposeDeveloping medical students' clinical reasoning requires a structured longitudinal curriculum with frequent targeted assessment and feedback. Performance-based assessments, which have the strongest validity evidence, are currently not feasible for this purpose because they are time-intensive to score. This study explored the potential of using machine learning technologies to score one such assessment-the diagnostic justification essay.MethodFrom May to September 2018, machine scoring algorithms were trained to score a sample of 700 diagnostic justification essays written by 414 third-year medical students from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine classes of 2012-2017. The algorithms applied semantically based natural language processing metrics (e.g., coherence, readability) to assess essay quality on 4 criteria (differential diagnosis, recognition and use of findings, workup, and thought process); the scores for these criteria were summed to create overall scores. Three sources of validity evidence (response process, internal structure, and association with other variables) were examined.ResultsMachine scores correlated more strongly with faculty ratings than faculty ratings did with each other (machine: .28-.53, faculty: .13-.33) and were less case-specific. Machine scores and faculty ratings were similarly correlated with medical knowledge, clinical cognition, and prior diagnostic justification. Machine scores were more strongly associated with clinical communication than were faculty ratings (.43 vs .31).ConclusionsMachine learning technologies may be useful for assessing medical students' long-form written clinical reasoning. Semantically based machine scoring may capture the communicative aspects of clinical reasoning better than faculty ratings, offering the potential for automated assessment that generalizes to the workplace. These results underscore the potential of machine scoring to capture an aspect of clinical reasoning performance that is difficult to assess with traditional analytic scoring methods. Additional research should investigate machine scoring generalizability and examine its acceptability to trainees and educators.

Project description:ObjectiveIt is crucial that teaching faculties determine and remain informed of medical school learners' clinical reasoning competence. We created an innovative assessment method for fourth-year medical students to identify deficiencies in various components of their clinical reasoning ability.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of fourth-year medical students' reasoning assessments from 2019 to 2022. Teams of four-five trainees questioned standardized patients in clinical scenarios, including fever, abdominal pain, and weight loss. They then individually documented key information to reflect comprehension of patient problems. Trainees were tasked with differentiating diagnoses and associated statuses and reaching the most likely diagnosis along with two tentative diagnoses. The correlations observed between 2020 and 2022 for abdominal pain were analyzed using student t-tests.ResultsA total of 177 students participated in this study. Across the scenarios, there was no significant difference in key information representation scores (56%-58%). Reasoning ability scores were 49% for fever, 57% for abdominal pain, and 61% for weight loss. A comparison between 2020 and 2022 revealed a significant improvement in the objective structured clinical examination scores and differential diagnoses (P < .01). Shortcomings included brief chief complaint duration, lack of detailed presentation, and insufficient description of negative information. Differential diagnosis and diagnostic justification were inadequate for acute and chronic conditions, and disease location clarity within the organ system was lacking. On average, students presented two correct diagnoses.ConclusionsFourth-year medical students exhibited inadequate reasoning abilities, particularly in fever and abdominal pain scenarios, with deficiencies in hypothesis generation and differential diagnosis. Group history-taking with individual reasoning assessment identified students' shortcomings and provided faculty feedback to improve their teaching strategies.

Project description:Background: Clinical reasoning refers to a thinking process including medical problem solving and medical decision making skills. Several studies have shown that the clinical reasoning process can be influenced by a number of factors, e.g. context or personality traits, and the results of this thinking process are expressed in case presentation. The aim of this study was to identify factors, which predict the quality of case summary statements as an indicator of clinical reasoning of undergraduate medical students in an assessment simulating the first day of residency. Methods: To investigate factors predicting aspects of clinical reasoning 67 advanced undergraduate medical students participated in the role of a beginning resident in our competence-based assessment, which included a consultation hour, a patient management phase, and a handover. Participants filled out a Post Encounter Form (PEF) to document their case summary statements and other aspects of clinical reasoning. After each phase, they filled out the Strain Perception Questionnaire (STRAIPER) to measure their situation dependent mental strain. To assess medical knowledge the participants completed a 100 questions multiple choice test. To measure stress resistance, adherence to procedures, and teamwork students took part in the Group Assessment of Performance (GAP) test for flight school applicants. These factors were included in a multiple linear regression analysis. Results: Medical knowledge and teamwork predicted the quality of case summary statements as an indicator of clinical reasoning of undergraduate medical students and explained approximately 20.3% of the variance. Neither age, gender, undergraduate curriculum, academic advancement nor high school grade point average of the medical students of our sample had an effect on their clinical reasoning skills. Conclusion: The quality of case summary statements as an indicator of clinical reasoning can be predicted in undergraduate medical students by their medical knowledge and teamwork. Students should be supported in developing abilities to work in a team and to acquire long term knowledge for good case summary statements as an important aspect of clinical reasoning.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The clinical reasoning process, which requires biomedical knowledge, knowledge about problem-solving strategies, and knowledge about reasons for diagnostic procedures, is a key element of physicians' daily practice but difficult to assess. The aim of this study was to empirically develop a Clinical Reasoning Indicators-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) and to assess the clinical reasoning ability of advanced medical students during a simulation involving history taking. METHODS:The Clinical Reasoning Indictors-History Taking-Scale (CRI-HT-S) including a 5-point Likert scale for assessment was designed from clinical reasoning indicators identified in a qualitative study in 2017. To assess indicators of clinical reasoning ability, 65 advanced medical students (semester 10, n =?25 versus final year, n =?40) from three medical schools participated in a 360-degree competence assessment in the role of beginning residents during a simulated first workday in hospital. This assessment included a consultation hour with five simulated patients which was videotaped. Videos of 325 patient consultations were assessed using the CRI-HT-S. A factor analysis was conducted and the students' results were compared according to their advancement in undergraduate medical training. RESULTS:The clinical reasoning indicators of the CRI-HT-S loaded on three factors relevant for clinical reasoning: 1) focusing questions, 2) creating context, and 3) securing information. Students reached significantly different scores (p <?.001) for the three factors (factor 1: 4.07?±?.47, factor 2: 3.72?±?.43, factor 3: 2.79?±?.83). Students in semester 10 reached significantly lower scores for factor 3 than students in their final year (p <?.05). CONCLUSIONS:The newly developed CRI-HT-S worked well for quantitative assessment of clinical reasoning indicators during history taking. Its three-factored structure helped to explore different aspects of clinical reasoning. Whether the CRI-HT-S has the potential to be used as a scale in objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) or in workplace-based assessments of clinical reasoning has to be investigated in further studies with larger student cohorts.

Dataset Information

A Virtual Clinical Reasoning Case for Medical Students Using an Ophthalmology Model: A Case of Red Eye.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

A Virtual Clinical Reasoning Case for Medical Students Using an Ophthalmology Model: A Case of Red Eye.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets