Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Articles
    • Current
    • Early Release
    • Archive
    • Rufus A. Lyman Award
    • Theme Issues
    • Special Collections
  • Authors
    • Author Instructions
    • Submission Process
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Call for Papers - Intersectionality of Pharmacists’ Professional and Personal Identity
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Instructions
    • Call for Mentees
    • Reviewer Recognition
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
  • About
    • About AJPE
    • Editorial Team
    • Editorial Board
    • History
  • More
    • Meet the Editors
    • Webinars
    • Contact AJPE
  • Other Publications

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
  • Other Publications
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Advanced Search

  • Articles
    • Current
    • Early Release
    • Archive
    • Rufus A. Lyman Award
    • Theme Issues
    • Special Collections
  • Authors
    • Author Instructions
    • Submission Process
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Call for Papers - Intersectionality of Pharmacists’ Professional and Personal Identity
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Instructions
    • Call for Mentees
    • Reviewer Recognition
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
  • About
    • About AJPE
    • Editorial Team
    • Editorial Board
    • History
  • More
    • Meet the Editors
    • Webinars
    • Contact AJPE
  • Follow AJPE on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Review ArticleREVIEW

Enhancing the “What” and “Why” of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process With the “How” of Clinical Reasoning

Lydia Newsom, Jill Augustine, Kylee Funk and Kristin K. Janke
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education April 2022, 86 (4) 8697; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8697
Lydia Newsom
aMercer University, College of Pharmacy, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jill Augustine
aMercer University, College of Pharmacy, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kylee Funk
bUniversity of Minnesota, College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kristin K. Janke
bUniversity of Minnesota, College of Pharmacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objectives. Clinical reasoning is integral to the provision of patient-centered care as outlined in the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (PPCP). However, the PPCP was not created to foster clinical reasoning in student pharmacists and cannot be the sole tool used to characterize or cultivate these skills. This article describes elements of clinical reasoning, the relationship between clinical reasoning and PPCP, and concepts from the clinical reasoning literature that should inform the teaching of clinical reasoning skills.

Findings. Key elements of the PPCP were identified in clinical reasoning definitions, but differences emerged. The literature supports clinical reasoning as a bidirectional, fluid process that is highly collaborative. Effective clinical reasoning requires multiple types of “thinking,” interaction with others and the environment, self-assessment, and a tolerance for nuance or ambiguity. Teaching strategies can be used in the didactic and experiential setting to target the cognitive and contextual factors associated with clinical reasoning.

Summary. Educators should consult the literature to enhance our understanding of clinical reasoning in seeking to teach, model, and foster these skills in our students. Future scholarship should include the development of models to support clinical reasoning within the profession of pharmacy, adoption and experimentation with clinical reasoning teaching techniques, and valuation of the utility of various assessment tools and processes.

Keywords:
  • clinical reasoning
  • Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (PPCP)
  • cognition

INTRODUCTION

To develop student pharmacists who can provide patient care as described in the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (PPCP), educators must teach and foster clinical reasoning skills. Despite its importance, there is limited consensus regarding the definition of clinical reasoning. Young and colleagues identified over 100 terms related to clinical reasoning in the literature.1 Psychological theories describe the “thinking” associated with clinical reasoning.2 Frameworks in the health professions education literature characterize the action or skill-based functions of clinical reasoning, including collaboration, communication, creation of a management plan, and self-regulation of reasoning.2-7 Application of the PPCP requires many of the cognitive, behavioral, and action-based steps that are associated with clinical reasoning. However, the PPCP was not created to foster clinical reasoning in student pharmacists and cannot be the sole tool used to characterize or cultivate this skill. To teach, model, and foster these skills in our students, pharmacy educators should seek a deeper understanding of the components and processes involved in clinical reasoning. This article seeks to describe elements of clinical reasoning, the relationship between clinical reasoning and the PPCP, and concepts from the clinical reasoning literature that should inform and enhance application of the PPCP. This paper also provides an overview of implications for teaching.

DISCUSSION

Most definitions of clinical reasoning begin with a description of a mental process and use terms like non-analytic and analytic.3 Non-analytic processes are fast, instinct-like processes, such as intuitive knowing or pattern recognition. Analytic processes are more time-intensive and involve intentional investigation, such as hypothesis testing or assessment of likelihood. Many definitions also identify specific practitioner behaviors, such as data collection,3,4,8 information synthesis,2,5,8 identification of patient preferences,8 or collaboration.5 Some definitions identify unique factors (ie, a practitioner’s reflection) that may impact these cognitive processes and behavior. Marcum proposes a cyclical model in which metacognition provides a link between non-analytic reasoning, analytic reasoning, and clinical decision-making.4 Christensen also includes a metacognitive component noting “reflective” behavior. Christensen, Trowbridge, and Durning reference external factors, such as the context, setting, or patient-specific factors, that influence clinical reasoning.2,5,8 Interestingly, Christensen5 and Eva3 both use directional language such as “recursive, non-linear” and “proceed[ing] in both directions,” respectively, to describe clinical reasoning. Finally, many definitions name the outcome or goal of reasoning, such as identification of a diagnosis, therapy, or management plan.9,10 Many definitions utilize diagnostic-based language as much of the research and characterization of clinical reasoning pertains to medical education. However, extrapolation to the profession of pharmacy is not only helpful but necessary to enhance the clinical reasoning skills of student pharmacists.

Many of the skills and behaviors described in clinical reasoning definitions correspond with those attributed to critical thinking,11,12 such as skills associated with interpretation, assessment, and evaluation of information.13 As with clinical reasoning, critical thinking is not well-defined in the literature due in part to the heterogeneous characterization of critical thinking by various disciplines and the complexity of skills, actions, goals, and outcomes of critical thinking.13-15 Both are context, setting, and knowledge dependent.2,8,13 Additionally, both critical thinking and clinical reasoning require self-regulation and metacognitive skills for success.4,5,13 However, clinical reasoning builds upon critical thinking with its emphasis on integration of clinical evidence, previous experience, and collaboration with others. These additional skills and behaviors are unique to healthcare professionals because of the provision of patient-centered care.16 Thus, further elucidation of clinical reasoning skills is valuable for the teaching and training of student pharmacists.

To describe the associations between clinical reasoning and the work of the pharmacist, clinical reasoning definitions were identified from the health professions education literature and health professions clinical reasoning texts. The definitions in Table 1 were selected to represent the breadth of concepts articulated by health professions educators. Key elements of the PPCP were identified in each definition. The Collect phase was explicitly acknowledged in most definitions, recognizing that data collection allows the practitioner to obtain appropriate information to inform their thinking. All definitions also included elements of the Assess and either the Plan or Implement phases of the PPCP, emphasizing that cognition results in a behavior or action. However, only one definition included the Follow Up step.5 While Durning2 and Christensen5 explicitly identified the need for collaboration, the communication or documentation components were not included in any of the selected definitions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Relationships Between Clinical Reasoning and the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process

The PPCP incorporates some components of clinical reasoning as is evident in Table 1. In general, the PPCP framework includes the “what” and “why” of the pharmacist’s work but not the “how” of clinical reasoning during patient care. The PPCP does not describe the cognitive processes and behaviors necessary for clinical reasoning in application of collect, assess, plan, implement, and follow up. Additional characteristics of clinical reasoning that impact application of the PPCP are listed in Table 2. The PPCP’s circular, stepwise model suggests a linear direction. However, this process likely recurs repetitively and proceeds in both directions as student pharmacists reason. For example, when identifying and prioritizing medication therapy problems (MTPs), student pharmacists must simultaneously collect and assess patient-specific information. Additionally, new information, unexpected events, or a change in a patient’s health-related goals may require a student pharmacist to move from the planning phase back to information collection prior to plan development and implementation. Thus, a student pharmacist who is reasoning clinically may move fluidly back and forth between multiple phases of the PPCP. Rigid adherence to the stepwise process of the PPCP may hinder effective clinical reasoning.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Enhancing Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process Through Consultation of the Clinical Reasoning Literature

The nuances identified in Table 2 have implications for teaching the PPCP and for fostering clinical reasoning skills. Concepts from the clinical reasoning literature that can inform discussion, modeling, and teaching of clinical reasoning within the context of the PPCP are presented in Table 3. The clinical reasoning literature supports use of multiple types of reasoning, including analytical reasoning and the use of preliminary hypotheses in data collection and assessment. A student pharmacist should think critically about the information they are collecting and work to generate preliminary hypotheses about a patient’s MTPs.3 There is also a role for non-analytic reasoning as educators talk-aloud about the impact of their personal experience, intuition, and the recognition of patterns in the care of patients.3,4,8 Self-reflection and self-assessment of one’s own clinical reasoning skills should occur frequently to promote self-awareness and to identify strengths, opportunities for learning, and personal biases. Student pharmacists must also acknowledge the impact of their environment and of others on clinical reasoning as the reasoning process occurs.2,5 For example, a student pharmacist’s clinical reasoning process would incorporate different variables when encountering a patient in a community pharmacy as compared to encountering a patient in the emergency department. Finally, student pharmacists should discuss their reasoning with peers, educators, and practitioners.17 Dialogue and inquiry from others can enhance clinical reasoning in the academic and clinical setting. This collaboration can be especially helpful when student pharmacists are working within the gray areas of patient care.19 As there may be more than one viable approach in the assessment and treatment of MTPs, student pharmacists must be comfortable using their clinical reasoning skills to identify an appropriate course of action in a given context. The concepts identified in Table 2 and Table 3 are likely best understood when seen in action. Figure 1 provides an illustrative example of clinical reasoning with important considerations highlighted.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Concepts for Educators to Consider When Discussing, Modeling, and Teaching from the Clinical Reasoning Literature

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Example of clinical reasoning through application of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process. Boxes with shading include concepts from Table 2. Boxes without shading include concepts from Table 3.

Clinical reasoning is vital to wise action, professional autonomy, competence, and the capacity to reason during uncertainty and with ill-defined problems.5 Definitions, theories, models, and frameworks can provide insight into the process of clinical reasoning. They help to define clinical reasoning, the variables involved, the interplay between the variables, and how the process works. However, no single theory seems to account for all aspects of clinical reasoning.20 To better appreciate the complexities and evolution of clinical reasoning in students, it can be helpful to consider clinical reasoning as a threshold skill.20 A threshold skill is integrative (ie, bringing together different aspects of the subject, including declarative and procedural knowledge), troublesome (ie, there is a foreign nature to the knowledge needed and unfamiliarity with the skill), transformative (ie, as students acquire further contextual knowledge they start to perform the skill more effectively and efficiently), associated with practice (ie, learned and sustained through repeated practice), and irreversible (ie, difficult to unlearn). Pinnock and colleagues aimed to investigate the nature of clinical reasoning from a student’s perspective and whether there was explanatory power in considering clinical reasoning as a threshold skill. In their study, medical students discussed clinical reasoning as an “exercise in integration” and reported the value of their previously acquired knowledge in a variety of basic science and clinical science areas, including the psychological and social aspects of the patient’s situation. They indicated that learning clinical reasoning can be troublesome as they begin to understand the knowledge they have yet to acquire and the reality of the need to make patient care plans despite uncertainties. Medical students have described the transformation involved in learning clinical reasoning and how their reasoning changed slowly and almost imperceptibly. In discussing the transformation, they reported the differences in their reasoning over time and in relation to junior colleagues. Clinical reasoning’s tight alignment with practice was also recognized. Supervised, repeated practice was reported as fundamental to developing their skills. Medical students also noted issues with transferability of clinical reasoning skills, given that the reasoning was often specific to the situation and environment. As educators debate, design, and sequence the activities needed to support the development of clinical reasoning abilities, its nature as integrative, troublesome, transformative, and associated with practice are important considerations. While learning to reason clinically is difficult, educators must also recognize the adjustment students are making to learn a different way. In the past, a student’s answers may have been prized and rewarded, along with their confidence in those answers. Yet, in clinical reasoning the questions that they ask become important (ie, questions about the patient, the situation, their peers, and themselves). Clinical reasoning is facilitated by student’s curiosity, open-ended thinking, and dialogue with their clinical teachers.19 This process may reveal knowledge or skill deficits21 and induce feelings of vulnerability. Educators should encourage curiosity, questioning, and dialogue,19 while also being prepared to diagnose the student’s clinical reasoning errors.21

While cultivating clinical reasoning skills in student pharmacists may seem like a daunting task, the clinical reasoning literature proposes useful strategies (Table 4). These teaching strategies can help educators to highlight skills or steps associated with clinical reasoning, facilitate deliberate practice of these skills, and provide feedback regarding performance and competence. Real-world cases or situational activities can introduce students to the ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity of clinical practice.3,21,23 Consider using cases or situations that slowly progress from simple to complex.2,20 This will allow student pharmacists to generate and integrate knowledge, practice cognitive processes related to clinical reasoning, and develop experience. A specific strategy may be selected by considering learner level and learning activity. The serial-cue approach25 involves providing basic case information to the student and follow-up information only after the student asks the appropriate questions or demonstrates a certain level of clinical reasoning. The whole-case approach25 provides the entire case and associated information to the student at the beginning of the simulation. Clinical reasoning scholars have hypothesized that lower-level learners or students with minimal clinical reasoning experience may benefit from the serial-cue approach20 to promote script development and better question-seeking behaviors in these students.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Strategies for Overcoming Challenges in Teaching Clinical Reasoning

Educators should watch for and verbally recognize signs that students’ questions are changing from taught or rote questions to questions related to the problem or hypothesis. Educators should also watch for and interpret indirect signs related to the student’s clinical reasoning, such as focused or unfocused patient interviewing and ability to identify discriminating features.24 Students and their teachers may benefit from adding clinical reasoning concepts into a familiar process, such as the assessment of indication, effectiveness, safety, and adherence (IESA). Regardless of the approach used, teaching strategies should introduce students to and require them to use different types of cognitive processes. In addition to these teaching strategies, educators should also model clinical reasoning with students23,26 by discussing their own clinical reasoning and thought processes. For example, an educator could first discuss the risk-benefit assessments of multiple evidence-based strategies (ie, gray areas or ambiguity) and then identify personal biases that may impact clinical reasoning (ie, metacognitive factors) or describe how other members of the interdisciplinary care team may provide information imperative for the management of a specific MTP (ie, collaboration). Finally, educators can encourage students to practice deliberately20,21 and request feedback on their performance to maximize learning from each experience and allow for reflection on errors that occurred.

It is vital for clinical reasoning to be taught, practiced, and assessed in the didactic curriculum in order to prepare students for experiential education.21,23,24 Yet, there are currently no definitive best practices for teaching and assessing clinical reasoning. Assessments should include real-world cases and settings to align with situations students will see in practice. Assessments could use multiple “correct” pathways or answers based on the student’s reasoning. Additionally, as clinical reasoning can be considered a threshold skill, clinical reasoning could be included in progression assessments for each academic year or prior to APPEs. Both workplace-based assessments (eg, direct observations, global performance ratings) and non-workplace-based assessments (eg, multiple choice questions, essay-based questions) have been outlined.7,21,24,26-29

As educators consider methods for addressing clinical reasoning and situating it within curricula, the relationships between clinical reasoning and various developmental processes and learning approaches should be considered. For example, for those interested in implicit theories of ability (or “mindset”30,31), it could be useful to discuss and/or monitor a student’s mindset toward improving clinical reasoning. In addition, it may be helpful to aim instructional support at encouraging effort and maintaining a growth mindset through clinical reasoning-related challenges. As another example, as students move through clinical reasoning thresholds and become more proficient, educators may observe clinical reasoning’s influence on self-authorship32 (eg, trusting their internal voice) or elements of socialization and professional identity formation33 (eg, doubts of competence leading to anxiety, learning to live with ambiguity). Educators are encouraged to examine clinical reasoning’s associations and intersections with familiar educational theories, concepts, and approaches.

CONCLUSION

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) 2016 Standards require attention to clinical reasoning and call for assessment of these skills throughout the curriculum.34 However, Standards 2016 do not provide specific guidance to educators for addressing clinical reasoning in the didactic or experiential setting. As educators train students to provide patient care through application of the PPCP, we must remember that the PPCP construct itself cannot be the sole tool used to define, teach, facilitate, and assess clinical reasoning skills. Instead, educators should familiarize themselves with the cognitive processes, behaviors, and skills associated with clinical reasoning to teach and facilitate development of these capabilities. Knowledge generation and integration occurs as students practice the bidirectional and iterative process of clinical reasoning and develop individual expertise. Viewing clinical reasoning as a threshold skill for student pharmacists can promote intentional spacing and variety of clinical reasoning activities, scaling of complexity, regular assessment, and attempts at more articulate expectations for clinical reasoning-related student performance. Cultivating these skills will ensure student pharmacists have the professional autonomy, competence, and ability to reason clinically within the real-world context of ambiguity and uncertainty. Future scholarship should include the development of models to support clinical reasoning within the profession of pharmacy, adaption and experimentation with clinical reasoning teaching techniques, and evaluation of the utility of various assessment tools and processes.

  • Received April 20, 2021.
  • Accepted July 30, 2021.
  • © 2022 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Young M,
    2. Thomas A,
    3. Gordon D,
    4. et al.
    The terminology of clinical reasoning in health professions education: implications and considerations. Med Teach. 2019;41(11):1277-1284. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1635686.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Durning SJ,
    2. Artino AR,
    3. Schuwirth L,
    4. et al.
    Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):442-448. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182851b5b
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Eva KW
    . What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):98-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Marcum J
    . An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:954-961. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Christensen N,
    2. Black L,
    3. Furze J,
    4. et al.
    Clinical reasoning: survey of teaching methods, integration, and assessment in entry-level physical therapist academic education. Phys Ther. 2017;97(2):175-186. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150320
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Audétat M-C,
    2. Laurin S,
    3. Sanche G,
    4. et al.
    Clinical reasoning difficulties: a taxonomy for clinical teachers. Med Teach. 2013;35(3):e984-e989. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.733041
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Daniel M,
    2. Rencic J,
    3. Durning SJ,
    4. et al.
    Clinical reasoning assessment methods: a scoping review and practical guidance. Acad Med. 2019;94(6):902-912. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Trowbridge RL,
    2. Rencic JJ,
    3. Durning SJ
    . Introduction/Preface. In: Teaching Clinical Reasoning. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians; 2015:xvii-xxii.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Higgs J,
    2. Jones M,
    3. Loftus S,
    4. Christensen N
    1. Higgs J,
    2. Jones M
    . Clinical decision making and multiple problem spaces. In: Higgs J, , Jones M, , Loftus S, , Christensen N, eds. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2008:3–18.
  10. 10.↵
    1. McBee E,
    2. Ratcliffe T,
    3. Goldszmidt M,
    4. et al.
    Clinical reasoning tasks and resident physicians: what do they reason about? Acad Med. 2016;91(7):1022-1028. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001024
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Facione P
    . Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Res Find Recomm. 1989;315.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Peeters M,
    2. Zitko K,
    3. Schmude K
    . Development of critical thinking in pharmacy education. Innov Pharm. 2016;7(1). doi: 10.24926/iip.v7i1.415
  13. 13.↵
    1. Pasquinelli E,
    2. Farina M,
    3. Bedel A,
    4. Casati R
    . Naturalizing critical thinking: consequences for education, blueprint for future research in cognitive science. Mind Brain Educ. 2021;15(2):168-176. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12286
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Huang GC,
    2. Newman LR,
    3. Schwartzstein RM
    . Critical thinking in health professions education: summary and consensus statements of the millennium conference 2011. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(1):95-102. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2013.857335
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kahlke R,
    2. Eva K
    . Constructing critical thinking in health professional education. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(3):156-165. doi: 10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Persky AM,
    2. Medina MS,
    3. Castleberry AN
    . Developing critical thinking skills in pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(2):7033. doi: 10.5688/ajpe7033
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Higgs J,
    2. Jensen GM,
    3. Loftus S,
    4. Christensen N
    . Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. 4th ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Elsevier; 2018.
  18. 18.
    1. Epstein RM
    . Mindful practice. JAMA. 1999;282(9):833-839. doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.833
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Gheihman G,
    2. Johnson M,
    3. Simpkin AL
    . Twelve tips for thriving in the face of clinical uncertainty. Med Teach. 2020;42(5):493-499. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1579308
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pinnock R,
    2. Anakin M,
    3. Jouart M
    . Clinical reasoning as a threshold skill. Med Teach. 2019;41(6):683-689. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1569754
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Rencic J
    . Twelve tips for teaching expertise in clinical reasoning. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):887-892. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.558142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Wright DFB,
    2. Anakin MG,
    3. Duffull SB
    . Clinical decision-making: an essential skill for 21st century pharmacy practice. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(5):600-606. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.001
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Sylvia LM
    . A lesson in clinical reasoning for the pharmacy preceptor. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2019;76(13):944-951. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz083
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Audétat MC,
    2. Laurin S,
    3. Dory V,
    4. et al.
    Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part II. Clinical reasoning difficulties: Management and remediation strategies. Med Teach. 2017;39(8):797-801. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1331034
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kelekar A,
    2. Afonso N
    . Evaluation of the effect of a new clinical reasoning curriculum in a pre-clerkship clinical skills course. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(2):123-127. doi: 10.1007/s40037-020-00566-4
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Audétat M-C,
    2. Laurin S,
    3. Dory V,
    4. Charlin B,
    5. Nendaz MR
    . Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part I. Clinical reasoning supervision and educational diagnosis. Med Teach. 2017;39(8):792-796. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1331033
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Young ME
    . Crystallizations of constructs. Perspect Med Ed. 2018;7(1):21-23. doi: 10.1007/s40037-018-0422-0
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Young M,
    2. Thomas A,
    3. Lubarsky S,
    4. et al.
    Drawing boundaries: the difficulty in defining clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):990-995.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Young ME,
    2. Dory V,
    3. Lubarsky S,
    4. et al.
    How different theories of clinical reasoning influence teaching and assessment. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1415. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002303
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Dweck Carol S
    . Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Psychology Press; 1999.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Elliot AJ,
    2. Dweck CS
    1. Dweck CS,
    2. Molden DC
    . Self-theories: their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In: Elliot AJ, , Dweck CS, eds. Handbook of Competence and Motivation. The Guilford Press; 2005:122-140.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Magolda M
    . Three elements of self-authorship. J Coll Stud Dev. 2008;49:269-284. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0016
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Cruess SR,
    2. Cruess RL
    . The development of professional identity. In: Understanding Medical Education. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2018:239-254.
  34. 34.↵
    Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation Standards and Key Elements for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree (“Standards 2016”). Published February 2015. Available at: https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/Standards2016FINAL.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2022.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
Vol. 86, Issue 4
1 Apr 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Enhancing the “What” and “Why” of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process With the “How” of Clinical Reasoning
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 17 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Enhancing the “What” and “Why” of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process With the “How” of Clinical Reasoning
Lydia Newsom, Jill Augustine, Kylee Funk, Kristin K. Janke
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Apr 2022, 86 (4) 8697; DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8697

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Enhancing the “What” and “Why” of the Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process With the “How” of Clinical Reasoning
Lydia Newsom, Jill Augustine, Kylee Funk, Kristin K. Janke
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Apr 2022, 86 (4) 8697; DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8697
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Similar AJPE Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Curricular Considerations for Preparing Student Pharmacists to Prescribe Hormonal Contraception
  • Strategies for Measuring Advances in Pharmacy Student Learning
Show more REVIEW

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • clinical reasoning
  • Pharmacists’ Patient Care Process (PPCP)
  • cognition

Home

  • AACP
  • AJPE

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Release
  • Archive

Instructions

  • Author Instructions
  • Submission Process
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewer Instructions

About

  • AJPE
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Board
  • History
  • Contact

© 2022 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Powered by HighWire