Effects of reflection and immediate feedback to improve clinical reasoning of medical students in the assessment of dermatologic conditions: a randomised controlled trial

Sungjun Choi, Sohee Oh, Dong Hun Lee, Hyun-Sun Yoon, Sungjun Choi, Sohee Oh, Dong Hun Lee, Hyun-Sun Yoon

Abstract

Background: There are few studies that directly compared different interventions to improve medical students' clinical reasoning for dermatologic conditions.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of adding practice with reflection and immediate feedback on traditional dermatology electives in improving medical students' ability in evaluating skin lesions.

Methods: The participants were fourth-year medical students of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea, who were enrolled to take a 2-week dermatology elective course (n = 87). Students were assigned to one of the three educational interventions: 2-h training involving 10 written clinical cases (experimental); 1-h lecture and 1-h outpatient clinic (lecture); and 2-h outpatient clinic (no intervention). Before and at the end of rotation, diagnostic accuracy was estimated using 20 written clinical cases with photographs (10 novel cases presented in diagnostic training [training set], 10 cases with diagnoses not included in training [control set]).

Results: There was a significant interaction effect of intervention×set×time. A post hoc analysis indicated that the students in the experimental group outperformed students in the other two groups only in the training set of the final tests; after completing the 2-week rotation, for the training set, the mean score was higher in the experimental group (7.5 ± 1.3) than in the lecture (5.7 ± 1.6) and no intervention (5.6 ± 1.3) groups, producing an effect size of 1.2 standard deviation (SD) and 1.5 SD, respectively.

Conclusion: Practicing written clinical cases with reflection and feedback is superior to a lecture-based approach and yields additional benefits to a dermatology elective, thereby enhancing medical students' ability to accurately diagnose skin lesions.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03472001. Registered 21 March 2018.

Keywords: Clinical reasoning; Dermatology elective; Feedback; Medication education; Reflection.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart showing randomisation of students and progress in the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
An example of a training case. This is a case of pigmented basal cell carcinoma. CC, chief complaint; F, female
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Histogram of student scores for the training (a, b) and the control (c, d) sets

References

    1. Chen SC, Pennie ML, Kolm P, Warshaw EM, Weisberg EL, Brown KM, Ming ME, Weintraub WS. Diagnosing and managing cutaneous pigmented lesions: primary care physicians versus dermatologists. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(7):678–682. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00462.x.
    1. Geller AC, Koh HK, Miller DR, Clapp RW, Mercer MB, Lew RA. Use of health services before the diagnosis of melanoma: implications for early detection and screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1992;7(2):154–157. doi: 10.1007/BF02598004.
    1. Rockley PF, Tyring SK. Pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of varicella zoster virus infections. Int J Dermatol. 1994;33(4):227–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4362.1994.tb01032.x.
    1. Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, Ko J, Swetter SM, Blau HM, Thrun S. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115–118. doi: 10.1038/nature21056.
    1. Stark A. FDA permits marketing of artificial intelligence-based device to detect certain diabetes-related eye problems. 2018. . Accessed 22 Mar 2019.
    1. Mamede S, van Gog T, Sampaio AM, de Faria RM, Maria JP, Schmidt HG. How can students’ diagnostic competence benefit most from practice with clinical cases? The effects of structured reflection on future diagnosis of the same and novel diseases. Acad Med. 2014;89(1):121–127. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000076.
    1. McCleskey PE, Gilson RT, DeVillez RL. Medical student core curriculum in dermatology survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61(1):30–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2008.10.066.
    1. Aldridge RB, Maxwell SS, Rees JL. Dermatology undergraduate skin cancer training: a disconnect between recommendations, clinical exposure and competence. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:27. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-27.
    1. Routt E, Mansouri Y, de Moll EH, Bernstein DM, Bernardo SG, Levitt J. Teaching the simple suture to medical students for long-term retention of skill. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(7):761–765. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.118.
    1. Schmidt HG, Mamede S. How to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning: a narrative review and a proposal. Med Educ. 2015;49(10):961–973. doi: 10.1111/medu.12775.
    1. Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2217–2225. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054782.
    1. Wigton RS, Patil KD, Hoellerich VL. The effect of feedback in learning clinical diagnosis. J Med Educ. 1986;61(10):816–822.
    1. de Beer M, Martensson L. Feedback on students’ clinical reasoning skills during fieldwork education. Aust Occup Ther J. 2015;62(4):255–264. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12208.
    1. Branch WT, Jr, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1185–1188. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200212000-00005.
    1. Rourke L, Oberholtzer S, Chatterley T, Brassard A. Learning to detect, categorize, and identify skin lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(3):293–301. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3300.
    1. Fleming A, Cutrer W, Reimschisel T, Gigante J. You too can teach clinical reasoning! Pediatrics. 2012;130(5):795–797. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2410.
    1. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–464. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136.
    1. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141(1):2–18. doi: 10.1037/a0024338.
    1. Cook DA. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach. 2012;34(6):468–473. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.671978.
    1. Robinson JK, Turrisi R. Skills training to learn discrimination of ABCDE criteria by those at risk of developing melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(4):447–452. doi: 10.1001/archderm.142.4.447.
    1. Charlin B, Tardif J, Boshuizen HP. Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research. Acad Med. 2000;75(2):182–190. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200002000-00020.
    1. Sandars J. The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE guide no. 44. Med Teach. 2009;31(8):685–695. doi: 10.1080/01421590903050374.
    1. van de Ridder JM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, ten Cate OT. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42(2):189–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02973.x.
    1. Kruglikova I, Grantcharov TP, Drewes AM, Funch-Jensen P. The impact of constructive feedback on training in gastrointestinal endoscopy using high-fidelity virtual-reality simulation: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2010;59(2):181–185. doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.191825.
    1. Earley PC, Northcraft GB, Lee C, Lituchy TR. Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task-performance. Acad Manag J. 1990;33(1):87–105.
    1. Dempsey MS, Kauffman DF. Supporting third year medical students’ skill acquisition and self-efficacy with coping models and process feedback during laparoscopic knot tying simulation. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1171. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01171.
    1. Harks B, Rakoczy K, Hattie J, Besser M, Klieme E. The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educ Psychol (Lond) 2014;34(3):269–290. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner