Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
In this era of increasing complexity, there is a growing gap between what we need our medical experts to do and the training we provide them. While medical education has a long history of being guided by theories of expertise to inform curriculum design and implementation, the theories that currently underpin our educational programs do not account for the expertise necessary for excellence in the changing health care context. ⋯ Three key educational approaches have been shown to foster the development of adaptive expertise: learning that emphasizes understanding, providing students with opportunities to embrace struggle and discovery in their learning, and maximizing variation in the teaching of clinical concepts. There is solid evidence that a commitment to these educational approaches can help medical educators to set trainees on the path towards adaptive expertise.
-
There is general consensus that clinical reasoning involves 2 stages: a rapid stage where 1 or more diagnostic hypotheses are advanced and a slower stage where these hypotheses are tested or confirmed. The rapid hypothesis generation stage is considered inaccessible for analysis or observation. Consequently, recent research on clinical reasoning has focused specifically on improving the accuracy of the slower, hypothesis confirmation stage. ⋯ The first perspective takes an epidemiological stance, appealing to the benefits of incorporating population data and evidence-based medicine in every day clinical reasoning. The second builds on the heuristic and bias research programme, appealing to a special class of dual process reasoning models that theorizes a rapid error prone cognitive process for problem solving with a slower more logical cognitive process capable of correcting those errors. Finally, the third perspective borrows from an exemplar model of categorization that explicitly relates clinical knowledge and experience to diagnostic accuracy.