Conceptualizing the next patient interaction: A clinical skillset using an emulation model in critical thinking. Issue 12 (2nd August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Johnsen, David C.; Mahrous, Ahmed; Syrbu, John; Kallem, Marisa L.; Comnick, Carissa L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of dental education. Volume 86:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1602
• Page End: 1610
• Publication Date: 2022-08-02
• Subjects: conceptualization of patient interaction -- critical thinking -- educational methodology -- emulation model -- teaching effectiveness -- teaching skills; Dentistry -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Study and teaching; Education, Dental; Dentisterie -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; Tandheelkunde; Onderwijs; Periodicals; Periodical; Electronic journals; 617.6007
• DOI: 10.1002/jdd.13062
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-0337

Abstract

Abstract: Conceptualizing: The next patient interaction is logical, essential, and largely done intuitively. Main purpose: To design and test a succinct learning guide for student guidance and student‐faculty interaction in conceptualizing the next patient interaction. Methods: In 2021 and 2022, faculty scored questions from 1–5: Recognize deviation from the ideal? Articulate how and how much the situation deviated? Gage consequences of the situation? Assess own capabilities? To what extent does the student have a clear grasp of the procedural outcome? Faculty were also given open‐ended questions. Results: Forty‐eight reports were completed, 25 D3 and 23 D4. Three hundred thirty‐five faculty entries were made in the questions calling for a 1–5 response out of a possible 336 responses. Statistically significant differences were noted. Students were better able to recognize the situation as different from ideal than to articulate how and how much the situation deviated. Students were better able to grasp how and how much this situation differs from the ideal than to assess own capabilities. D4 students were better able to recognize deviation from the ideal and to articulate how and how much the situation deviated than were D3 students. For open‐ended questions, more students were scored as "Prepared" than were scored as "Unsure" and "Missed" combined. Conclusions: The exercise is seen as a succinct and constructive (nonjudgmental) path to guide the student's conceptualization of the next patient encounter before the encounter begins. Next steps will be incremental for wider use in a clinical teaching environment.