Cargando…
Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting
INTRODUCTION: One-minute preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS (a mnemonic for Summarize history and findings; Narrow the differential; Analyze the differential; Probe the preceptor about uncertainties; Plan management; and Select case-related issues for self-study) are educational techniques developed to prom...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32430879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00588-y |
_version_ | 1783576300586270720 |
---|---|
author | Fagundes, Eleonora D. T. Ibiapina, Cássio C. Alvim, Cristina G. Fernandes, Rachel A. F. Carvalho-Filho, Marco Antônio Brand, Paul L. P. |
author_facet | Fagundes, Eleonora D. T. Ibiapina, Cássio C. Alvim, Cristina G. Fernandes, Rachel A. F. Carvalho-Filho, Marco Antônio Brand, Paul L. P. |
author_sort | Fagundes, Eleonora D. T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: One-minute preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS (a mnemonic for Summarize history and findings; Narrow the differential; Analyze the differential; Probe the preceptor about uncertainties; Plan management; and Select case-related issues for self-study) are educational techniques developed to promote learners’ expression of clinical reasoning during the case presentation in the workplace. The aim of this present study was to compare the content of the case presentation between the SNAPPS and the OMP methods. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial comparing SNAPPS and OMP in 60 medical students at the beginning of their fifth year of medical school. After an introduction session, students presented and discussed two cases based on real patients and provided in written format. All case presentations were recorded and evaluated by two researchers. The assessed elements of the case presentations were divided into three subgroups related to expression of clinical reasoning, time and initiative to guide the presentation. RESULTS: There were 30 participants in each group. There was no difference in the expression of clinical reasoning between OMP and SNAPPS groups (number of differential diagnoses, justification of most likely diagnosis and differential diagnosis, expression of comparing and contrasting hypotheses). However, students in the SNAPPS group expressed significantly more questions and uncertainties (p < 0.001), and more often took the initiative to present and justify the most likely diagnosis, differential diagnosis and management plan than students in the OMP group, both in simple and complex cases (all p values <0.001) without extending the length of the teaching session. CONCLUSION: OMP and SNAPPS equally promote medical students’ expression of clinical reasoning. The SNAPPS technique was more effective than the OMP technique in helping students to take on an active role during case presentation. We propose SNAPPS as an effective learning tool, engaging students and promoting the expression of their clinical reasoning as part of a case presentation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7458993 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Bohn Stafleu van Loghum |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74589932020-09-15 Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting Fagundes, Eleonora D. T. Ibiapina, Cássio C. Alvim, Cristina G. Fernandes, Rachel A. F. Carvalho-Filho, Marco Antônio Brand, Paul L. P. Perspect Med Educ Original Article INTRODUCTION: One-minute preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS (a mnemonic for Summarize history and findings; Narrow the differential; Analyze the differential; Probe the preceptor about uncertainties; Plan management; and Select case-related issues for self-study) are educational techniques developed to promote learners’ expression of clinical reasoning during the case presentation in the workplace. The aim of this present study was to compare the content of the case presentation between the SNAPPS and the OMP methods. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial comparing SNAPPS and OMP in 60 medical students at the beginning of their fifth year of medical school. After an introduction session, students presented and discussed two cases based on real patients and provided in written format. All case presentations were recorded and evaluated by two researchers. The assessed elements of the case presentations were divided into three subgroups related to expression of clinical reasoning, time and initiative to guide the presentation. RESULTS: There were 30 participants in each group. There was no difference in the expression of clinical reasoning between OMP and SNAPPS groups (number of differential diagnoses, justification of most likely diagnosis and differential diagnosis, expression of comparing and contrasting hypotheses). However, students in the SNAPPS group expressed significantly more questions and uncertainties (p < 0.001), and more often took the initiative to present and justify the most likely diagnosis, differential diagnosis and management plan than students in the OMP group, both in simple and complex cases (all p values <0.001) without extending the length of the teaching session. CONCLUSION: OMP and SNAPPS equally promote medical students’ expression of clinical reasoning. The SNAPPS technique was more effective than the OMP technique in helping students to take on an active role during case presentation. We propose SNAPPS as an effective learning tool, engaging students and promoting the expression of their clinical reasoning as part of a case presentation. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020-05-19 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7458993/ /pubmed/32430879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00588-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Fagundes, Eleonora D. T. Ibiapina, Cássio C. Alvim, Cristina G. Fernandes, Rachel A. F. Carvalho-Filho, Marco Antônio Brand, Paul L. P. Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title | Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title_full | Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title_fullStr | Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title_short | Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting |
title_sort | case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus snapps in a controlled setting |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7458993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32430879 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00588-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fagundeseleonoradt casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting AT ibiapinacassioc casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting AT alvimcristinag casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting AT fernandesrachelaf casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting AT carvalhofilhomarcoantonio casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting AT brandpaullp casepresentationmethodsarandomizedcontrolledtrialoftheoneminutepreceptorversussnappsinacontrolledsetting |