Presentation Description
Amanda Edgar1
Suzanne Estaphan2, Luke Chong3, James A Armitage3, Lucy Ainge3 and Gerard Corrigan4
1 Deakin Learning Futures, Deakin University
2 School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University
3 School of Medicine, Deakin University
4 School of Rural Medicine, Charles Sturt University
Suzanne Estaphan2, Luke Chong3, James A Armitage3, Lucy Ainge3 and Gerard Corrigan4
1 Deakin Learning Futures, Deakin University
2 School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University
3 School of Medicine, Deakin University
4 School of Rural Medicine, Charles Sturt University
Background:
Many assessment methods focus on the high level elements of clinical reasoning, such as information gathering, generating differential diagnoses and developing targeted management plans (Daniel, Rencic et al. 2019). In their exploration of the diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties, Audetat and colleagues argue there should be a focus on the reasoning processes (Audetat, Laurin et al. 2017). This study was designed to understand less accessible elements of clinical reasoning during assessment including the reasoning process.
Many assessment methods focus on the high level elements of clinical reasoning, such as information gathering, generating differential diagnoses and developing targeted management plans (Daniel, Rencic et al. 2019). In their exploration of the diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties, Audetat and colleagues argue there should be a focus on the reasoning processes (Audetat, Laurin et al. 2017). This study was designed to understand less accessible elements of clinical reasoning during assessment including the reasoning process.
Summary of work:
Three students completed a digital simulated authentic clinical reasoning assessment task. Process mapping (Smith and Corrigan, 2018), a form of microanalysis, was used to investigate the clinical reasoning process, using decisions students made whilst completing the assessment task. The process map data were analysed and coded.
Three students completed a digital simulated authentic clinical reasoning assessment task. Process mapping (Smith and Corrigan, 2018), a form of microanalysis, was used to investigate the clinical reasoning process, using decisions students made whilst completing the assessment task. The process map data were analysed and coded.
Results:
17 process maps were generated for participant 1, and 18 for participants 2 and 3, totalling 53 process maps. A codebook was generated, including 4 codes and 27 sub-codes.
Discussion:
This study demonstrated that process mapping can be used to investigate the clinical reasoning processes optometry students use in a digitally simulated authentic clinical case. The codebook generated in this study can be used in future iterations of microanalytic research incorporating process mapping and clinical reasoning in the context of optometry.
This study demonstrated that process mapping can be used to investigate the clinical reasoning processes optometry students use in a digitally simulated authentic clinical case. The codebook generated in this study can be used in future iterations of microanalytic research incorporating process mapping and clinical reasoning in the context of optometry.
Conclusions:
Students are utilising clinical reasoning to make conscious decisions and process mapping has the potential to investigate the underlying process further including the identification of heuristics and biases used to make decisions in the simulated clinical case.
Students are utilising clinical reasoning to make conscious decisions and process mapping has the potential to investigate the underlying process further including the identification of heuristics and biases used to make decisions in the simulated clinical case.
Implications for practice and further research:
Future research could also focus on uncovering how process maps can be used as a reflective tool to provide feedback and feed forward into future assessments and clinical experiences.
Future research could also focus on uncovering how process maps can be used as a reflective tool to provide feedback and feed forward into future assessments and clinical experiences.
References (maximum three)
Audetat, M. C., S. Laurin, V. Dory, B. Charlin and M. R. Nendaz (2017). "Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part I. Clinical reasoning supervision and educational diagnosis." Med Teach: 1-5.
Daniel, M., J. Rencic, S. J. Durning, E. Holmboe, S. A. Santen, V. Lang, T. Ratcliffe, D. Gordon, B. Heist, S. Lubarsky, C. A. Estrada, T. Ballard, A. R. Artino, Jr., A. Sergio Da Silva, T. Cleary, J. Stojan and L. D. Gruppen (2019). "Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance." Acad Med 94(6): 902-912.
Smith, P. and G. Corrigan (2018). "How learners learn: A new microanalytic assessment method to map decision-making." Med Teach: 1-9.