ArticleBMC medical education2026
Teaching clinical reasoning in medical education: qualitative insights from educators at two UK universities.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeficiencies in clinical reasoning are a major contributor to diagnostic error and patient harm globally. There is increasing recognition of the need for longitudinal, integrated clinical reasoning teaching within medical curricula. This qualitative study explored educators' understanding and perceptions of clinical reasoning at two UK medical schools with differing approaches to clinical reasoning education.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 final-year medical clerkship supervisors across the two institutions. Interviews explored their understanding of clinical reasoning, experiences with teaching clinical reasoning, and perspectives on curriculum design and faculty development. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.
resultsEducators described clinical reasoning as a complex cognitive operation. While they broadly shared an understanding of its core components, and its essential role in effective clinical decision making, their individual accounts revealed variations in scope and emphasis. Key themes included the need for longitudinally integrated curricula, explicit clinical reasoning instruction, structured faculty development, and challenges such as time constraints, institutional culture, and variable student engagement.
conclusionThe roles of a longitudinal and integrated curriculum design and faculty development in preparing educators to teach clinical reasoning were highlighted. These results are crucial for those considering new curriculum implementation, highlighting the need to design and introduce a focused faculty development programme for educators alongside the planned curriculum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.