Résumés
Résumé
Contexte: Dans le cadre des séances de simulation de raisonnement clinique (RC) à la faculté de médecine de l’Université d’Ottawa, les étudiants de pré-externat sont jumelés en dyade afin d’augmenter le nombre de cas cliniques pratiques avant l’externat. Un étudiant joue le rôle du clinicien (EC) et l’autre est observateur (EO) en alternance. Cette étude descriptive quantitative vise à comparer la génération d’hypothèses diagnostiques des EO à celles des EC pour soutenir l’utilité de l’observation engagée des pairs comme stratégie d’apprentissage du RC en contexte de simulation clinique.
Méthodes: Suivant un entretien avec un patient simulé, les EC et les EO ont été invités à générer deux hypothèses diagnostiques dans un formulaire électronique. Les réponses ont été compilées, catégorisées et comparées en termes d’hypothèses diagnostiques équivalentes au sein d’une même dyade. La différence de distribution de fréquences des hypothèses équivalentes a été analysée statistiquement à l’aide d’un calcul du chi-carré.
Résultats: Le pourcentage de dyades avec au moins une hypothèse diagnostique équivalente varie entre 83 à 100% selon le scénario. Le nombre d’hypothèses équivalentes entre les EO et les EC est statistiquement significatif (p<0.01).
Conclusion: Les EO semblent pouvoir générer des hypothèses diagnostiques semblables aux EC. Les résultats soutiennent l’utilisation de l’observation engagée des pairs comme stratégie d’apprentissage du RC en contexte de simulation clinique au pré-externat de médecine
Abstract
Background: Learning clinical reasoning (CR) requires practice in a variety of educational settings. As part of the clinical simulation sessions at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Medicine, pre-clerkship students are paired in dyads to increase the number of practical clinical cases before the clerkship. One student plays the role of a Clinical Student (CS) and the other alternates as a Student Observer (SO). This quantitative descriptive study aims to compare the diagnostic hypothesis generation by SOs with that of CSs to support the usefulness of engaged peer observation as a CR learning strategy in clinical simulation settings.
Methods: Following an interview with a simulated patient, CSs and SOs were asked to generate two diagnostic hypotheses in an electronic form. Responses were compiled, categorized, and compared in terms of equivalent diagnostic hypotheses within the same dyad. The difference in frequency distribution of equivalent hypotheses was statistically analyzed using a chi-square calculation.
Results: The percentage of dyads with at least one equivalent diagnostic hypothesis ranged from 83% to 100%, depending on the scenario. The number of equivalent hypotheses between SOs and CSs was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Conclusion: SOs appear to be able to generate diagnostic hypotheses similar to those of CSs. The results support the use of engaged peer observation as a learning strategy for CR in clinical simulation settings in pre-clerkship medical education.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Norman G. Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):418–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x
- Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2004;39(1):98–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x
- Young M, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, et al. Drawing boundaries: the difficulty in defining clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):990–995. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002142
- Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, et al. Clinical reasoning assessment methods: a scoping review and practical guidance. Acad Med. 2019;94(6):902–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002618
- Haring CM, Cools BM, van Gurp PJ, van der Meer JW, Postma CT. Observable phenomena that reveal medical students’ clinical reasoning ability during expert assessment of their history taking: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(147). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0983-3
- Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, et al. The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ paitents. Nurse Educ Today. 2010; 30(6):515–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020
- O’Regan S, Molloy E, Watterson L, Nestel D. Observer roles that optimise learning in healthcare simulation education: a systematic review. Adv Sim. 2016;1(4)1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-015-0004-8
- Groves M, Scott I, Alexander H. Assessing clinical reasoning: a method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24(5):507–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220145743
- Kaplan BG, Abraham C, Gary R. Effect of participation vs. observation of a simulation experience on testing outcomes: implications for logistical planning for a school of nursing. Intern J Nurs Educ Sch. 2012;9(1)14: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1515/1548-923x.14
- Stegmann K, Pilz F, Siebeck M, Fischer F. Vicarious learning during simulations: Is it more effective than hands-on training? Med Educ. 2012;46:1001–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04344.x
- Martineau B, Mamede S, St-Onge C, Rikers RM, Schmidt HG. To observe or not to observe peers when learning physical examination skills; that is the question. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(55):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-55
- Chamberland M, Mamede S, St-Onge C, Setrakian J, Schmidt HG. Does medical students’ diagnostic performance improve by observing examples of self-explanation provided by peers or experts? Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20:981–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9576-7