Cited by 134Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

Teaching medical students the important connection between communication and clinical reasoning

Windish, Donna M., Price, Eboni G., Clever, Sarah L., Magaziner, Jeffrey L., Thomas, Patricia A.·2005·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Medical students are rarely taught how to integrate communication and clinical reasoning. Not understanding the relation between these skills may lead students to undervalue the connection between psychosocial and biomedical aspects of patient care.Objective To improve medical students' communication and clinical reasoning and their appreciation of how these skills interrelate in medical practice.Design In 2003, we conducted a randomized trial of a curricular intervention at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. In a 6-week course, participants learned communication and clinical reasoning skills in an integrative fashion using small group exercises with role-play, reflection and feedback through a structured iterative reflective process.Participants Second-year medical students.Measurements All students interviewed standardized patients who evaluated their communication skills in establishing rapport, data gathering and patient education/counseling on a 5-point scale (1=poor; 5=excellent). We assessed clinical reasoning through the number of correct problems listed and differential diagnoses generated and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory. Students rated the importance of learning these skills in an integrated fashion.Results Standardized patients rated curricular students more favorably in establishing rapport (4.1 vs 3.9; P=.05). Curricular participants listed more psychosocial history items on their problem lists (65% of curricular students listing > or =1 item vs 44% of controls; P=.008). Groups did not differ significantly in other communication or clinical reasoning measures. Ninety-five percent of participants rated the integration of these skills as important.Conclusions Intervention students performed better in certain communication and clinical reasoning skills. These students recognized the importance of biomedical and psychosocial issues in patient care. Educators may wish to teach the integration of these skills early in medical training.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0244.x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Feedback from both standardized patients and instructors provides a dual perspective, helping learners refine their communication approach while enhancing emotional intelligence and professionalism.

    “Feedback from both the SP and instructors provides a dual perspective, helping learners refine their communication approach while enhancing emotional intelligence and professionalism [105,106].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Windish, D. M., Price, E. G., Clever, S. L., Magaziner, J. L., & Thomas, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Windish, Donna M.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2005-12
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
1108-1113
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1980243728
Cited by
134
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32hl007180-45)
  • Health Resources and Services Administration
  • U.S. Public Health Service (2-32-HP10025)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL007180, T32-HL-007180)
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 › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
physician-patient communication, clinical reasoning, medical education, standardized patients, role play, reflective practice, rapport building, psychosocial history, differential diagnosis, curriculum intervention
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Communication, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Medical History Taking, Physician-Patient Relations, Students, Medical, Patient Simulation

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