Using Relational Reasoning Strategies to Help Improve Clinical Reasoning Practice
Academic Medicine, ISSN: 1938-808X, Vol: 93, Issue: 5, Page: 709-714
2018
- 13Citations
- 119Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- CrossRef13
- 13
- Captures119
- Readers119
- 119
Review Description
Clinical reasoning - the steps up to and including establishing a diagnosis and/or therapy - is a fundamentally important mental process for physicians. Unfortunately, mounting evidence suggests that errors in clinical reasoning lead to substantial problems for medical professionals and patients alike, including suboptimal care, malpractice claims, and rising health care costs. For this reason, cognitive strategies by which clinical reasoning may be improved - and that many expert clinicians are already using - are highly relevant for all medical professionals, educators, and learners. In this Perspective, the authors introduce one group of cognitive strategies - termed relational reasoning strategies - that have been empirically shown, through limited educational and psychological research, to improve the accuracy of learners' reasoning both within and outside of the medical disciplines. The authors contend that relational reasoning strategies may help clinicians to be metacognitive about their own clinical reasoning; such strategies may also be particularly well suited for explicitly organizing clinical reasoning instruction for learners. Because the particular curricular efforts that may improve the relational reasoning of medical students are not known at this point, the authors describe the nature of previous research on relational reasoning strategies to encourage the future design, implementation, and evaluation of instructional interventions for relational reasoning within the medical education literature. The authors also call for continued research on using relational reasoning strategies and their role in clinical practice and medical education, with the long-term goal of improving diagnostic accuracy.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053879203&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002114; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29280755; https://journals.lww.com/00001888-201805000-00029; http://Insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00001888-900000000-98022; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002114; https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2018/05000/Using_Relational_Reasoning_Strategies_to_Help.29.aspx
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know