IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i21p11202-d664394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Reasoning Needs to Be Explicitly Addressed in Health Professions Curricula: Recommendations from a European Consortium

Author

Listed:
  • Ioannis Parodis

    (Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
    Department of Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Lina Andersson

    (School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Steven J. Durning

    (Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA)

  • Inga Hege

    (Medical Education Sciences, Medical School, University of Augsburg, 86159 Augsburg, Germany)

  • Jure Knez

    (Division for Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor and Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia)

  • Andrzej A. Kononowicz

    (Department of Bioinformatics and Telemedicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30 688 Krakow, Poland)

  • Marie Lidskog

    (School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Tadej Petreski

    (Department of Nephrology, Clinic for Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre Maribor and Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia)

  • Magdalena Szopa

    (Department of Medical Education, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30 688 Krakow, Poland
    Department of Metabolic Diseases, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30 688 Krakow, Poland)

  • Samuel Edelbring

    (School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81 Örebro, Sweden)

Abstract

Clinical reasoning entails the application of knowledge and skills to collect and integrate information, typically with the goal of arriving at a diagnosis and management plan based on the patient’s unique circumstances and preferences. Evidence-informed, structured, and explicit teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning in educational programs of medical and other health professions remain unmet needs. We herein summarize recommendations for clinical reasoning learning objectives (LOs), as derived from a consensus approach among European and US researchers and health professions educators. A four-step consensus approach was followed: (1) identification of a convenience sample of the most relevant and applied national LO catalogues for health professions educational programs (N = 9) from European and US countries, (2) extraction of LOs related to clinical reasoning and translation into English, (3) mapping of LOs into predefined categories developed within the Erasmus+ Developing, implementing, and disseminating an adaptive clinical reasoning curriculum for healthcare students and educators (DID-ACT) consortium, and (4) synthesis of analysis findings into recommendations for how LOs related to clinical reasoning could be presented and incorporated in LO catalogues, upon consensus. Three distinct recommendations were formulated: (1) make clinical reasoning explicit, (2) emphasize interprofessional and collaboration aspects of clinical reasoning, and (3) include aspects of teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning. In addition, the consortium understood that implementation of bilingual catalogues with English as a common language might contribute to lower heterogeneity regarding amount, structure, and level of granularity of clinical reasoning LOs across countries. These recommendations will hopefully motivate and guide initiatives towards the implementation of LOs related to clinical reasoning in existing and future LO catalogues.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioannis Parodis & Lina Andersson & Steven J. Durning & Inga Hege & Jure Knez & Andrzej A. Kononowicz & Marie Lidskog & Tadej Petreski & Magdalena Szopa & Samuel Edelbring, 2021. "Clinical Reasoning Needs to Be Explicitly Addressed in Health Professions Curricula: Recommendations from a European Consortium," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11202-:d:664394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11202/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/21/11202/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:21:p:11202-:d:664394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.