Show simple item record

Instrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínico

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS CLINICAL REASONING

dc.contributores-ES
dc.contributoren-US
dc.creatorSilva, Verónica; Universidad Andrés Bello
dc.creatorMcColl, Peter
dc.creatorPérez, Carolina
dc.creatorSearle, Mariana
dc.creatorGoset, Jessica
dc.date2018-12-04
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-11T18:26:18Z
dc.date.available2019-11-11T18:26:18Z
dc.identifierhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/view/6962
dc.identifier.urihttps://revistaschilenas.uchile.cl/handle/2250/110619
dc.descriptionBackground: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years’ experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of "strongly agree" and "agree" the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.es-ES
dc.descriptionBackground: Teaching clinical reasoning is a challenge in medical education. Aim: To design a clinical reasoning assessment instrument. Material and methods: Structured interviews were carried out to six physicians with at least five years’ experience. The Grounded Theory method was used to determine the relevant categories of the clinical reasoning process and the modified Delphi expert judgment method to validate the categories, the definition of observable behaviors and the format of the instrument. Results: The relevant reasoning categories were the reason for consultation, medical history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reasoning reassessment capacity. Expert judgment assessed at a level of "strongly agree" and "agree" the sufficiency, clarity and pertinence of all categories, related observable behaviors and instrument format. The internal Kappa consistency yielded an index of 0.92. Conclusions: The resulting instrument was constructed with the following axes derived from the main categories and subcategories: reason for consultation, history, physical examination, additional tests, diagnosis, therapeutic options and reassessment capacity.en-US
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherRevista Médica de Chilees-ES
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/view/6962/4542
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36590
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36591
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36592
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36593
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36594
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36595
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36638
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36639
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/36897
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/37354
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/37695
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/38054
dc.relationhttp://www.revistamedicadechile.cl/ojs/index.php/rmedica/article/downloadSuppFile/6962/38516
dc.sourceRevista Médica de Chile; Vol. 146, núm. 12 (2018): DICIEMBRE 2018es-ES
dc.source0034-9887
dc.subjectClinical Decision Making; Conditioning, Operant; Education, Medicales-ES
dc.subjectClinical Decision Making; Conditioning, Operant; Education, Medicalen-US
dc.titleInstrumento para el desarrollo del razonamiento clínicoes-ES
dc.titleDEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS CLINICAL REASONINGen-US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.typees-ES


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record