Professional approaches in clinical judgements among senior and junior doctors: implications for medical education

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical experience has traditionally been highly valued in medical education and clinical healthcare. On account of its multi-faceted nature, clinical experience is mostly difficult to articulate, and is mainly expressed in clinical situations as professional approaches. Due to retirement, hospitals in Scandinavia will soon face a substantial decrease in the number of senior specialist doctors, and it has been discussed whether healthcare will suffer an immense loss of experienced-based knowledge when this senior group leaves the organization. Both senior specialists and junior colleagues are often involved in clinical education, but the way in which these two groups vary in professional approaches and contributions to clinical education has not been so well described. Cognitive psychology has contributed to the understanding of how experience may influence professional approaches, but such studies have not included the effect of differences in position and responsibilities that junior and senior doctors hold in clinical healthcare. In the light of the discussion above, it is essential to describe the professional approaches of senior doctors in relation to those of their junior colleagues. This study therefore aims to describe and compare the professional approaches of junior and senior doctors when making clinical judgements.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Critical incident technique was used in interviews with nine senior doctors and nine junior doctors in internal medicine. The interviews were subjected to qualitative content analysis.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Senior and junior doctors expressed a variety of professional approaches in clinical judgement as follows: use of theoretical knowledge, use of prior experience of cases and courses of events, use of ethical and moral values, meeting and communicating with the patient, focusing on available information, relying on their own ability, getting support and guidance from others and being directed by the organization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most prominent varieties of professional approaches were seen in use of knowledge and work-related experience. Senior doctors know how the organization has worked in the past and have acquired techniques with respect to long-term decisions and their consequences. Junior doctors, on the other hand, have developed techniques and expertise for making decisions based on a restricted amount of information, in relation to patients' wellbeing as well as organizational opportunities and constraints. This study contributes to medical education by elucidating the variation in professional approaches among junior and senior doctors, which can be used as a basis for discussion about clinical judgement, in both pre-clinical and clinical education. Further research is required to explain how these professional approaches are expressed and used in clinical education.</p

To observe or not to observe peers when learning physical examination skills; That is the question

Background: Learning physical examination skills is an essential element of medical education. Teaching strategies include practicing the skills either alone or in-group. It is unclear whether students benefit more from training these skills individually or in a group, as the latter allows them to observing their peers. The present study, conducted in a naturalistic setting, investigated the effects of peer observation on mastering psychomotor skills necessary for physical examination. Methods. The study included 185 2§ssup§nd§esup§-year medical students, participating in a regular head-to-toe physical examination learning activity. Students were assigned either to a single-student condition (n = 65), in which participants practiced alone with a patient instructor, or to a multiple-student condition (n = 120), in which participants practiced in triads under patient instructor supervision. The students subsequently carried out a complete examination that was videotaped and subsequently evaluated. Student's performance was used as a measure of learning. Results: Students in the multiple-student condition learned more than those who practiced alone (8

Diagnostic thinking and information used in clinical decision-making: a qualitative study of expert and student dental clinicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is uncertain whether the range and frequency of Diagnostic Thinking Processes (DTP) and pieces of information (concepts) involved in dental restorative treatment planning are different between students and expert clinicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We video-recorded dental visits with one standardized patient. Clinicians were subsequently interviewed and their cognitive strategies explored using guide questions; interviews were also recorded. Both visit and interview were content-analyzed, following the Gale and Marsden model for clinical decision-making. Limited tests used to contrast data were t, χ², and Fisher's. Scott's π was used to determine inter-coder reliability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen dentists and 17 senior dental students participated in visits lasting 32.0 minutes (± 12.9) among experts, and 29.9 ± 7.1 among students; contact time with patient was 26.4 ± 13.9 minutes (experts), and 22.2 ± 7.5 (students). The time elapsed between the first and the last instances of the clinician looking in the mouth was similar between experts and students. Ninety eight types of pieces of information were used in combinations with 12 DTPs. The main differences found in DTP utilization had dentists conducting diagnostic interpretations of findings with sufficient certainty to be considered definitive twice as often as students. Students resorted more often to more general or clarifying enquiry in their search for information than dentists.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Differences in diagnostic strategies and concepts existed within clearly delimited types of cognitive processes; such processes were largely compatible with the analytic and (in particular) non-analytic approaches to clinical decision-making identified in the medical field. Because we were focused on a clinical presentation primarily made up of non-emergency treatment needs, use of other DTPs and concepts might occur when clinicians evaluate emergency treatment needs, complex rehabilitative cases, and/or medically compromised patients.</p

Four clinical concepts: a template for cognitive integration of clinical and basic sciences

Four clinical concepts symptoms, diagnosis, causes, and treatment(s) comprised an easily implementable organizing framework for both individual basic science lectures and for an “integration session” that incorporated clinical and discipline-based foundational sciences. According to most students (\u3e80 %) surveyed, this approach facilitated a novel and more meaningful appreciation of basic science in a clinical context, and most (78 %) said they intended to apply this organizing framework in their future learning. Given the enthusiasm of our students for this approach, we intend to organize more sessions around this template with a more rigorous quantitative assessment of our template for fostering cognitive integration

A training approach for the transition of repeatable collaboration processes to practitioners

This paper presents a training approach to support the deployment of collaboration process support according to the Collaboration Engineering approach. In Collaboration Engineering, practitioners in an organization are trained to facilitate a specific collaborative work practice on a recurring basis. To transfer the complex skill set of a facilitator to support the practitioner in guiding a specific collaboration process design, we propose a detailed training approach based on the logic of Cognitive Load Theory. The training approach focuses on transferring knowledge and skills in the form of thinkLets, i.e. repeatable facilitation techniques. Furthermore, the training contains a process simulation to practice challenges in collaboration support. The training approach was positively evaluated using a questionnaire instrument in a case study.Multi Actor SystemsTechnology, Policy and Managemen

Social Policy and Cognitive Enhancement: Lessons from Chess

Should the development of pharmacological cognitive enhancers raise worries about doping in cognitively demanding activities? In this paper, we argue against using current evidence relating to enhancement to justify a ban on cognitive enhancers using the example of chess. It is a mistake to assume that enhanced cognitive functioning on psychometric testing is transferable to chess performance because cognitive expertise is highly complex and in large part not merely a function of the sum specific sub-processes. A deeper reason to doubt that pharmacological cognitive enhancers would be as significant in mind sports is the misleading parallel with physical enhancement. We will make the case that cognitive performance is less mechanical in nature than physical performance. We draw lessons from this case example of chess for the regulation of cognitive enhancement more generally in education and the professions. Premature regulation runs the risk of creating a detrimental culture of suspicion that ascribes unwarranted blame