Self-explanation in learning clinical reasoning: the added value of examples and prompts

ContextRecent studies suggest that self-explanation (SE) while diagnosing cases fosters the development of clinical reasoning in medical students; however, the conditions that optimise the impact of SE remain unknown. The example-based learning framework justifies an exploration of students' use of their own SEs combined with the study of examples. This study aimed to assess the impact on medical students' diagnostic performance of: (i) combining students' SEs with their listening to examples of residents' SEs, and (ii) the addition of prompts (specific questions) while working with examples. MethodsThis study consisted of a training phase and an assessment phase conducted 1week later. In the training phase, 54 Year3 medical students were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In all groups, students first solved four clinical cases using SE. Subsequently, Group1 listened to examples of residents' SEs with prompts; Group2 listened to examples of residents' SEs without prompts, and the control group solved word puzzles. Then, all students again solved the same four cases. One week later, all students solved four similar and four different cases. Students' diagnostic performance and diagnostic accuracy scores were assessed for each case at each time-point. ResultsAlthough all groups' diagnostic accuracy scores on similar cases improved significantly between the training and the assessment phase, Group1 showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance score after 1week than the control group (p=0.037). On different cases, Group1 obtained significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (p=0.011) and diagnostic performance (p<0.001) scores than the control group and a significantly higher diagnostic performance score than Group2 (p=0.018). ConclusionsSelf-explanation seems to be an effective technique to help medical students learn clinical reasoning. Its impact is increased significantly by combining it with examples of residents' SEs and prompts. Although students' exposure to examples of clinical reasoning is important, their active processing' of these examples appears to be critical to their learning from them. Discuss ideas arising from the article at discuss

Does medical students' diagnostic performance improve by observing examples of self-explanation provided by peers or experts?

Educational strategies that promote the development of clinical reasoning in students remain scarce. Generating self-explanations (SE) engages students in active learning and has shown to be an effective technique to improve clinical reasoning in clerks. Example-based learning has been shown to support the development of accurate knowledge representations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of combining student's SE and observation of peer's or expert's SE examples on diagnostic performance. Fifty-three third-year medical students were assigned to a peer SE example, an expert SE example or control (no example) group. All participants solved a set of the same four clinical cases (training cases), 1-after SE, 2-after listening to a peer or expert SE example or after a control task, and 3-1 week later. They solved a new set of four different cases (transfer cases) also 1 week later. For training cases, students improved significantly their diagnostic performance overtime but the main effect of group was not significant suggesting that students' SE mainly drives the observed effect. On transfer cases, there was no difference between the three groups (p > .05). Educational implications are discussed and further studies on different types of examples and additional strategies to help students actively process examples are proposed

A physician-centred intervention to shorten hospital stay: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Studies of length of stay (LOS) in hospital usually focus on physician-independent factors. In this study, the authors identified physician-dependent factors and tested an intervention aimed at them to determine its effect on LOS. METHODS: A prospective comparison of LOS on 2 general medical wards in a tertiary care teaching hospital before and after the intervention. The pre-intervention (control) period and the intervention period were each 4 weeks. The intervention consisted of a checklist for planning management and discharge. RESULTS: Overall, the mean LOS was shorter during the intervention period than during the control period, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.0 and 14.4 days respectively, p = 0.13). The difference was significant on ward A (11.0 v. 14.7 days respectively, p = 0.02) but not on ward B (13.0 and 14.0 days respectively, p = 0.90). INTERPRETATION: An intervention at the level of the admitting physician may help to shorten LOS on a general medical ward

Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?

Abstract Background Self-explanation without feedback has been shown to improve medical students’ diagnostic reasoning. While feedback is generally seen as beneficial for learning, available evidence of the value of its combination with self-explanation is conflicting. This study investigated the effect on medical students’ diagnostic performance of adding immediate or delayed content-feedback to self-explanation while solving cases. Methods Ninety-four 3rd-year students from a Canadian medical school were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions (immediate-feedback, delayed-feedback, control). In the learning phase, all students solved four clinical cases by giving i) the most likely diagnosis, ii) two main arguments supporting this diagnosis, and iii) two plausible alternative diagnoses, while using self-explanation. The immediate-feedback group was given the correct diagnosis after each case; delayed-feedback group received the correct diagnoses only after the four cases; control group received no feedback. One week later, all students solved four near-transfer (i.e., same final diagnosis as the learning cases but different scenarios) and four far-transfer cases (i.e., different final diagnosis from the learning cases and different scenarios) by answering the same three questions. Students’ diagnostic accuracy (score for the response to the first question only) and diagnostic performance (combined score of responses to the three questions) scores were assessed in each phase. Four one-way ANOVAs were performed on each of the two scores for near and far-transfer cases. Results There was a significant effect of experimental condition on diagnostic accuracy on near-transfer cases (p