No Cover Image

Journal article 807 views 103 downloads

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review

Meredith E. Young, Aliki Thomas, Stuart Lubarsky, David Gordon, Larry D. Gruppen, Joseph Rencic, Tiffany Ballard, Eric Holmboe, Ana Sergio Da Silva Orcid Logo, Temple Ratcliffe, Lambert Schuwirth, Valérie Dory, Steven J. Durning

BMC Medical Education, Volume: 20, Issue: 1

Swansea University Author: Ana Sergio Da Silva Orcid Logo

  • 54007VOR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

    Download (1.1MB)

Abstract

BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on cli...

Full description

Published in: BMC Medical Education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa54007
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract: BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning.ResultsLiterature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types.DiscussionMany diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.
Keywords: Clinical reasoning, Health professions, Synthesis, Scoping review, Teaching, Assessment, Education
College: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Funders: This work was partially supported the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQ-S) Junior Research Scholar program and by funds provided by the Department of Medicine, McGill University to M. Young.
Issue: 1