Cargando…
REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool
INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning encompasses the process of data collection, synthesis, and interpretation to generate a working diagnosis and make management decisions. Situated cognition theory suggests that knowledge is relative to contextual factors, and clinical reasoning in urgent situations i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9202973/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07513-5 |
_version_ | 1784728630356606976 |
---|---|
author | Peterson, Brian D. Magee, Charles D. Martindale, James R. Dreicer, Jessica J. Mutter, M. Kathryn Young, Gregory Sacco, Melissa Jerdonek Parsons, Laura C. Collins, Stephen R. Warburton, Karen M. Parsons, Andrew S. |
author_facet | Peterson, Brian D. Magee, Charles D. Martindale, James R. Dreicer, Jessica J. Mutter, M. Kathryn Young, Gregory Sacco, Melissa Jerdonek Parsons, Laura C. Collins, Stephen R. Warburton, Karen M. Parsons, Andrew S. |
author_sort | Peterson, Brian D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning encompasses the process of data collection, synthesis, and interpretation to generate a working diagnosis and make management decisions. Situated cognition theory suggests that knowledge is relative to contextual factors, and clinical reasoning in urgent situations is framed by pressure of consequential, time-sensitive decision-making for diagnosis and management. These unique aspects of urgent clinical care may limit the effectiveness of traditional tools to assess, teach, and remediate clinical reasoning. METHODS: Using two validated frameworks, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians trained to remediate clinical reasoning and with experience in urgent clinical care encounters designed the novel Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool (REACT). REACT is a behaviorally anchored assessment tool scoring five domains used to provide formative feedback to learners evaluating patients during urgent clinical situations. A pilot study was performed to assess fourth-year medical students during simulated urgent clinical scenarios. Learners were scored using REACT by a separate, multidisciplinary group of clinician educators with no additional training in the clinical reasoning process. REACT scores were analyzed for internal consistency across raters and observations. RESULTS: Overall internal consistency for the 41 patient simulations as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. A weighted kappa statistic was used to assess the overall score inter-rater reliability. Moderate reliability was observed at 0.56. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, REACT is the first tool designed specifically for formative assessment of a learner’s clinical reasoning performance during simulated urgent clinical situations. With evidence of reliability and content validity, this tool guides feedback to learners during high-risk urgent clinical scenarios, with the goal of reducing diagnostic and management errors to limit patient harm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07513-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9202973 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92029732022-06-17 REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool Peterson, Brian D. Magee, Charles D. Martindale, James R. Dreicer, Jessica J. Mutter, M. Kathryn Young, Gregory Sacco, Melissa Jerdonek Parsons, Laura C. Collins, Stephen R. Warburton, Karen M. Parsons, Andrew S. J Gen Intern Med Original Research INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning encompasses the process of data collection, synthesis, and interpretation to generate a working diagnosis and make management decisions. Situated cognition theory suggests that knowledge is relative to contextual factors, and clinical reasoning in urgent situations is framed by pressure of consequential, time-sensitive decision-making for diagnosis and management. These unique aspects of urgent clinical care may limit the effectiveness of traditional tools to assess, teach, and remediate clinical reasoning. METHODS: Using two validated frameworks, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians trained to remediate clinical reasoning and with experience in urgent clinical care encounters designed the novel Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool (REACT). REACT is a behaviorally anchored assessment tool scoring five domains used to provide formative feedback to learners evaluating patients during urgent clinical situations. A pilot study was performed to assess fourth-year medical students during simulated urgent clinical scenarios. Learners were scored using REACT by a separate, multidisciplinary group of clinician educators with no additional training in the clinical reasoning process. REACT scores were analyzed for internal consistency across raters and observations. RESULTS: Overall internal consistency for the 41 patient simulations as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. A weighted kappa statistic was used to assess the overall score inter-rater reliability. Moderate reliability was observed at 0.56. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, REACT is the first tool designed specifically for formative assessment of a learner’s clinical reasoning performance during simulated urgent clinical situations. With evidence of reliability and content validity, this tool guides feedback to learners during high-risk urgent clinical scenarios, with the goal of reducing diagnostic and management errors to limit patient harm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07513-5. Springer International Publishing 2022-06-16 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9202973/ /pubmed/35710662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07513-5 Text en © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine 2022 |
spellingShingle | Original Research Peterson, Brian D. Magee, Charles D. Martindale, James R. Dreicer, Jessica J. Mutter, M. Kathryn Young, Gregory Sacco, Melissa Jerdonek Parsons, Laura C. Collins, Stephen R. Warburton, Karen M. Parsons, Andrew S. REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title | REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title_full | REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title_fullStr | REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title_full_unstemmed | REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title_short | REACT: Rapid Evaluation Assessment of Clinical Reasoning Tool |
title_sort | react: rapid evaluation assessment of clinical reasoning tool |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9202973/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07513-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petersonbriand reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT mageecharlesd reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT martindalejamesr reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT dreicerjessicaj reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT muttermkathryn reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT younggregory reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT saccomelissajerdonek reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT parsonslaurac reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT collinsstephenr reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT warburtonkarenm reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool AT parsonsandrews reactrapidevaluationassessmentofclinicalreasoningtool |