Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 14, 2022Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the AJHPE is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The AJHPE does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors. The corresponding author should also indicate if the research forms part of a postgraduate short report, dissertation or thesis.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.Main Article Content
Understanding of clinical reasoning by undergraduate students and clinical educators in health and rehabilitation sciences at a South African University: The implications for teaching practice
Abstract
Background. Clinical reasoning (CR) is a skill acquired by students under supervision of clinical educators (CEs) when transitioning from classroom to clinical practice to optimise patient care. However, intra- and inter-professional differences in the definition and facilitation of CR have been reported. At the University of Cape Town, a teaching development grant was obtained and used for a staff development initiative aimed at improving the CR skills of undergraduate health and rehabilitation students.
Objectives. To gain insight into the understanding of CR among CEs and a cohort of third-year students across 4 professional programmes, using an interpretive approach.
Methods. The CEs responsible for third-year supervision (n=45) were invited to take part in a self-developed electronic survey and an initial workshop that explored their understanding of CR. The qualitative survey data, as well as workshop feedback and discussion, were analysed. Students’ understanding was explored during focus group discussions.
Results. There were areas of commonality and differences among CEs. They agreed on a cyclical step-like process to CR and the need to cue students to develop this expertise in clinical settings. The approach of CEs in occupational therapy was client focused; physiotherapy CEs described a higher order thinking; and audiology and speech and language pathology CEs described a structured procedure informed by evidence. Students were unable to conceptualise a complete picture to reasoning and decision-making.
Conclusion. The difference between students’ understanding of CR and their poor awareness of strategies employed by CEs to facilitate reasoning
could account for difficulties in transitioning from classroom to practice. This scenario suggests that divisions need to look at creating more purposeful
strategies to teach students about the CR process and how the facilitation may occur within the clinical setting.
