Diagnostic hypothesis generation through engaged peer observation: a quantitative descriptive study in a clinical simulation context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77080Abstract
Background: Learning clinical reasoning (CR) requires practice in a variety of educational settings. As part of the clinical simulation sessions at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Medicine, pre-clerkship students are paired in dyads to increase the number of practical clinical cases before the clerkship. One student plays the role of a Clinical Student (CS) and the other alternates as a Student Observer (SO). This quantitative descriptive study aims to compare the diagnostic hypothesis generation by SOs with that of CSs to support the usefulness of engaged peer observation as a CR learning strategy in clinical simulation settings.
Methods: Following an interview with a simulated patient, CSs and SOs were asked to generate two diagnostic hypotheses in an electronic form. Responses were compiled, categorized, and compared in terms of equivalent diagnostic hypotheses within the same dyad. The difference in frequency distribution of equivalent hypotheses was statistically analyzed using a chi-square calculation.
Results: The percentage of dyads with at least one equivalent diagnostic hypothesis ranged from 83% to 100%, depending on the scenario. The number of equivalent hypotheses between SOs and CSs was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Conclusion: SOs appear to be able to generate diagnostic hypotheses similar to those of CSs. The results support the use of engaged peer observation as a learning strategy for CR in clinical simulation settings in pre-clerkship medical education.
References
Norman G. Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):418–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x
Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2004;39(1):98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x
Young M, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, et al. Drawing boundaries: the difficulty in defining clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):990–995. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002142
Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, 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
Haring CM, Cools BM, van Gurp PJ, van der Meer JW, Postma CT. Observable phenomena that reveal medical students’ clinical reasoning ability during expert assessment of their history taking: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(147). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0983-3
Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, et al. The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ paitents. Nurse Educ Today. 2010; 30(6):515–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020
O’Regan S, Molloy E, Watterson L, Nestel D. Observer roles that optimise learning in healthcare simulation education: a systematic review. Adv Sim. 2016;1(4)1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-015-0004-8
Groves M, Scott I, Alexander H. Assessing clinical reasoning: a method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24(5):507–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220145743
Kaplan BG, Abraham C, Gary R. Effect of participation vs. observation of a simulation experience on testing outcomes: implications for logistical planning for a school of nursing. Intern J Nurs Educ Sch. 2012;9(1)14: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1515/1548-923x.14
Stegmann K, Pilz F, Siebeck M, Fischer F. Vicarious learning during simulations: Is it more effective than hands-on training? Med Educ. 2012;46:1001–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04344.x
Martineau B, Mamede S, St-Onge C, Rikers RM, Schmidt HG. To observe or not to observe peers when learning physical examination skills; that is the question. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(55):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-55
Chamberland M, Mamede S, St-Onge C, Setrakian J, Schmidt HG. Does medical students’ diagnostic performance improve by observing examples of self-explanation provided by peers or experts? Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20:981–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9576-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Stephanie Benoit, Diane Bouchard-Lamothe, Manon Denis-LeBlanc, Isabelle Burnier
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
