Clinical reasoning education in the clerkship years: A cross-disciplinary national needs assessment

Abstract

Background Improving clinical reasoning education has been identified as an important strategy to reduce diagnostic error—an important cause of adverse patient outcomes. Clinical reasoning is fundamental to each specialty, yet the extent to which explicit instruction in clinical reasoning occurs across specialties in the clerkship years remains unclear. Method The Alliance for Clinical Education (ACE) Clinical Reasoning Workgroup and the Directors of Clinical Skills Courses (DOCS) Clinical Reasoning Workgroup collaborated to develop a clinical reasoning needs assessment survey. The survey questionnaire covered seven common clinical reasoning topics including illness scripts, semantic qualifiers, cognitive biases and dual process theory. Questionnaires were delivered electronically through ACE member organizations, which are primarily composed of clerkship leaders across multiple specialties. Data was collected between March of 2019 and May of 2020. Results Questionnaires were completed by 305 respondents across the six organizations. For each of the seven clinical reasoning topics, the majority of clerkship leaders (range 77.4% to 96.8%) rated them as either moderately important or extremely important to cover during the clerkship curriculum. Despite this perceived importance, these topics were not consistently covered in respondents’ clerkships (range 29.4% to 76.4%) and sometimes not covered anywhere in the clinical curriculum (range 5.1% to 22.9%). Conclusions Clerkship educators across a range of clinical specialties view clinical reasoning instruction as important, however little curricular time is allocated to formally teach the various strategies. Faculty development and restructuring of curricular time may help address this potential gap.