Teaching the Diagnostic Process as a Model to Improve Medical Education

Framework and Schema are False Synonyms: Defining Terms to Improve Learning

Clinical reasoning is an essential expertise of health care professionals that includes the complex cognitive processes that lead to diagnosis and management decisions. In order to optimally teach, learn, and assess clinical reasoning, it is imperative for teachers and learners to have a shared understanding of the language. Currently, educators use the terms schema and framework interchangeably but they are distinct concepts. In this paper, we offer definitions for schema and framework and use the high-stakes field of aviation to demonstrate the interplay of these concepts. We offer examples of framework and schema in the medical education field and discuss how a clear understanding of these concepts allows for greater intentionality when teaching and assessing clinical reasoning.

Use of a structured approach and virtual simulation practice to improve diagnostic reasoning

OBJECTIVES

In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine IOM estimated that 12 million patients were misdiagnosed annually. This suggests that despite prolonged training in medical school and residency there remains a need to improve diagnostic reasoning education. This study evaluates a new approach.

METHODS

A total of 285 medical students were enrolled in this 8 center, IRB approved trial. Students were randomized to receive training in either abdominal pain (AP) or loss of consciousness (LOC). Baseline diagnostic accuracy of the two different symptoms was assessed by completing a multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination and virtual patient encounters. Following a structured educational intervention, including a lecture on the diagnostic approach to that symptom and three virtual patient practice cases, each student was re-assessed.

RESULTS

The change in diagnostic accuracy on virtual patient encounters was compared between (1) baseline and post intervention and (2) post intervention students trained in the prescribed symptom vs. the alternate symptom (controls). The completeness of the student's differential diagnosis was also compared. Comparison of proportions were conducted using χ ²-tests. Mixed-effects regressions were used to examine differences accounting for case and repeated measures. Compared with baseline, both the AP and LOC groups had marked post-intervention improvements in obtaining a correct final diagnosis; a 27% absolute improvement in the AP group (p<0.001) and a 32% absolute improvement in the LOC group (p<0.001). Compared with controls (the groups trained in the alternate symptoms), the rate of correct diagnoses increased by 13% but was not statistically significant (p=0.132). The completeness and efficiency of the differential diagnoses increased by 16% (β=0.37, p<0.001) and 17% respectively (β=0.45, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that a virtual patient platform combined with a diagnostic reasoning framework could be used for education and diagnostic assessment and improved correct diagnosis compared with baseline performance in a simulated platform.

Teaching diagnostic reasoning: using simulation and mixed practice to build competence

The acquisition of competence in diagnostic reasoning is essential for medical trainees. Exposure to a variety of patient presentations helps develop the skills of diagnostic reasoning, but reliance on ad hoc clinical encounters is inefficient and does not guarantee timely exposure for all trainees. We present a novel teaching series led by emergency physicians that builds upon the existing medical education literature to teach diagnostic reasoning to preclinical (2nd year) medical students. The series used emergency department simulations involving patient actors and simulated vital signs to provide students with exposure to three acute care presentations: chest pain, abdominal pain, and headache. Emergency physicians coached and provided immediate feedback to the students as they actively worked through diagnostic reasoning. The participating medical students reported benefit from these sessions immediately following the sessions and in an 18-month follow-up survey where the students could consider the impact of the sessions on their clinical clerkship. Students felt that the sessions had assisted them in recognizing the key features of relevant diagnoses during clerkship as well as providing a helpful adjunct to their in-class learning.