Cited by 96Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Clinical Reasoning as a Core Competency

Connor, Denise M., Durning, Steven J., Rencic, Joseph J.·2020·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Diagnostic error is a challenging problem; addressing it effectively will require innovation across multiple domains of health care, including medical education. Diagnostic errors often relate to problems with clinical reasoning, which involves the cognitive and relational steps up to and including establishing a diagnostic and therapeutic plan with a patient. However, despite a call from the National Academies of Sciences for medical educators to improve the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, the creation of explicit, theory-informed clinical reasoning curricula, faculty development resources, and assessment tools has proceeded slowly in both undergraduate and graduate medical education. To accelerate the development of this critical element of health professions education and to promote needed research and innovation in clinical reasoning education, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) should revise its core competencies to include clinical reasoning. The core competencies have proven to be an effective means of expanding educational innovation across the United States and ensuring buy-in across a diverse array of institutions and disciplines. Reformulating the ACGME core competencies to include clinical reasoning would spark much-needed educational innovation and scholarship in graduate medical education, as well as collaboration across institutions in this vital aspect of physicianship, and ultimately, could contribute to a reduction of patient suffering by better preparing trainees to build individual, team-based, and system-based tools to monitor for and avoid diagnostic error.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000003027

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Connor, D. M., Durning, S. J., & Rencic, J. J.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Connor, Denise M.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2019-01-10
Volume
95
Issue
8
Pages
1166-1171
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2977391421
Cited by
96
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
clinical reasoning, diagnostic errors, core competencies, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, graduate medical education, medical education reform, faculty development, assessment instruments, patient safety
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Accreditation, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Diagnosis, Diagnostic Errors, Education, Medical, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review