To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
System disruptions
We are currently experiencing disruptions on the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Why is it so difficult to implement a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum? A multicenter interview study on the barriers perceived by European health professions educators
Department of Medical Education, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Instruct gGmbH, Munich, Germany.
Center for Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences. (Learning and Professional Development Group)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1110-0782
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: BMC Medical Education, E-ISSN 1472-6920, Vol. 21, no 1, article id 575Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Effective clinical reasoning is a core competency of health professionals that is necessary to assure patients' safety. Unfortunately, adoption of longitudinal clinical reasoning curricula is still infrequent. This study explores the barriers that hinder the explicit teaching of clinical reasoning from a new international perspective.

METHODS: The context of this study was a European project whose aim is to develop a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum. We collected data in semi-structured interviews with responders from several European countries who represent various health professions and have different backgrounds, roles and experience. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the gathered data and constructed a coding frame using a combined deductive/inductive approach. The identified themes were validated by parallel coding and in group discussions among project members.

RESULTS: A total of 29 respondents from five European countries participated in the interviews; the majority of them represent medicine and nursing sciences. We grouped the identified barriers into eight general themes: Time, Culture, Motivation, Clinical Reasoning as a Concept, Teaching, Assessment, Infrastructure and Others. Subthemes included issues with discussing errors and providing feedback, awareness of clinical reasoning teaching methods, and tensions between the groups of professionals involved.

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an in-depth analysis of the barriers that hinder the teaching of explicit clinical reasoning. The opinions are presented from the perspective of several European higher education institutions. The identified barriers are complex and should be treated holistically due to the many interconnections between the identified barriers. Progress in implementation is hampered by the presence of reciprocal causal chains that aggravate this situation. Further research could investigate the perceptual differences between health professions regarding the barriers to clinical reasoning. The collected insights on the complexity and diversity of these barriers will help when rolling out a long-term agenda for overcoming the factors that inhibit the implementation of clinical reasoning curricula.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2021. Vol. 21, no 1, article id 575
Keywords [en]
Barriers, Clinical reasoning, Health professions education, Interview study, Teaching clinical reasoning
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-95426DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-02960-wISI: 000717982100004PubMedID: 34772405Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85117586510OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-95426DiVA, id: diva2:1611420
Note

Funding agencies:

Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliance DID-ACT 612454-EPP-1-2019-1-DE-EPPKA2-KA

Jagiellonian University Medical College N41/DBS/000720

Available from: 2021-11-15 Created: 2021-11-15 Last updated: 2022-02-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Edelbring, Samuel

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Edelbring, Samuel
By organisation
School of Health Sciences
In the same journal
BMC Medical Education
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 29 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf