Background: Systematic assessment of clinical reasoning skills of medical students in clinical practice is very difficult. This is partly caused by the lack of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying the process of clinical reasoning. Methods: We previously developed an observation tool to assess the clinical reasoning skills of medical students during clinical practice. This observation tool consists of an 11-item observation rating form (ORT). In the present study we verified the validity, reliability and feasibility of this tool and of an already existing post-encounter rating tool (PERT) in clinical practice among medical students during the internal medicine clerkship. Results: Six raters each assessed the same 15 student-patient encounters. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alfa) for the (ORT) was 0.87 (0.71-0.84) and the 5-item (PERT) was 0.81 (0.71-0.87). The intraclass-correlation coefficient for single measurements was poor for both the ORT; 0.32 (p < 0.001) as well as the PERT; 0.36 (p < 0.001). The Generalizability study (G-study) and decision study (D-study) showed that 6 raters are required to achieve a Gcoefficient of > 0.7 for the ORT and 7 raters for the PERT. The largest sources of variance are the interaction between raters and students. There was a consistent correlation between the ORT and PERT of 0.53 (p = 0.04). Conclusions: The ORT and PERT are both feasible, valid and reliable instruments to assess students' clinical reasoning skills in clinical practice.

The ECE proved to be a reliable clinical assessment that enables examinees to compose a clinical reasoning path through self-obtained data. The ECE can also be used as an assessment tool for separate clinical skills.

In this setting in the Netherlands, PA students and MDs score about equal in the appraisal of common cases in medical practice. The slightly lower scores of PA students' clinical reasoning in the full scope of clinical care may have raise attention to medical teams working with PAs and PA training programmes.

Optimizing teacher motivation in distributed learning environments is paramount to ensure high-quality education, as medical education is increasingly becoming the responsibility of a larger variety of healthcare contexts. This study aims to explore teaching-related basic need satisfaction, e.g. teachers’ feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness in teaching, in different healthcare contexts and to provide insight into its relation to contextual factors. We distributed a digital survey among healthcare professionals in university hospitals (UH), district teaching hospitals (DTH), and primary care (PC). We used the Teaching-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale, based on the Self-Determination theory, to measure teachers’ basic needs satisfaction in teaching. We studied relations between basic need satisfaction and perceived presence of contextual factors associated with teacher motivation drawn from the literature. Input from 1407 healthcare professionals was analyzed. PC healthcare professionals felt most autonomous, UH healthcare professionals felt most competent, and DTH healthcare professionals felt most related. Regardless of work context, teachers involved in educational design and who perceived more appreciation and developmental opportunities for teaching reported higher feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in teaching, as did teachers who indicated that teaching was important at their job application. Perceived facilitators for teaching were associated with feeling more autonomous and related. These results can be utilized in a variety of healthcare contexts for improving teaching-related basic need satisfaction. Recommendations for practice include involving different healthcare professionals in educational development and coordination, forming communities of teachers across healthcare contexts, and addressing healthcare professionals’ intentions to be involved in education during job interviews.

Background The assessment of clinical reasoning by medical students in clinical practice is very difficult. Partly this is because the fundamental mechanisms of clinical reasoning are difficult to uncover and when known, hard to observe and interpret. We developed an observation tool to assess the clinical reasoning ability of medical students during clinical practice. The observation tool consists of an 11-item observation rating form. The validity, reliability and feasibility of this tool were verified among medical students during the internal medicine clerkship and compared to a post-encounter rating tool. Results Six raters assessed each the same 15 student patient encounters. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alfa) for the observation rating tool (ORT) was 0.87 (0.71-0.84) and the 5-item post encounter rating tool (PERT) was 0.81 (0.71-0.87). The intraclass-correlation coefficient for single measurements was poor for both the ORT; 0.32 (p<0.001) as well as the PERT; 0.36 (p<0.001). The G and D-study showed that 6 raters are required to achieve a G-coefficient of > 0.7 for the ORT and 7 raters for the PERT. The largest sources of variance are the interaction between raters and students. There was a correlation between the ORT and PERT of 0.53 (p=0.04) Conclusions The ORT and PERT are both feasible, valid and reliable instruments to assess students’ clinical reasoning skills in clinical practice.