Scoping review: Diagnostic reasoning as a component of clinical reasoning in the U.S. primary care nurse practitioner education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Diagnostic Reasoning (DR) is an essential competency requiring mastery for safe, independent Nurse Practitioner (NP) practice, but little is known about DR content included in NP education programs. The aims of this study were to identify whether and how the concept of DR is addressed in NP education. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review on DR-related content and teaching innovations in U.S. primary care NP education programs, with implications for NP education programs worldwide. Concepts and principles with global applicability include: conducting focused and hypothesis-directed histories and exams, generating the problem statement, formulating the differential diagnosis, appropriate and relevant diagnostic testing, determining the working diagnosis and developing evidence-based, patient-centred management plans. DATA SOURCES: N = 1115 articles retrieved from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for the period 2005-2021. Forty-one scholarly articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted, synthesized and grouped by theoretical frameworks, content included, educational interventions and assessment measures. RESULTS: Most articles provided descriptions of approaches for teaching NP clinical or diagnostic reasoning. Ten papers directly referenced the current science and theory of DR. CONCLUSION: The US NP education literature addressing DR is limited and demonstrates a lack of shared conceptualizations of DR. Whilst numerous components of DR are identifiable in the literature, a robust teaching/learning scholarship for DR has not yet been established in the US NP education literature. IMPACT: Whilst primary care NP education programs are beginning to incorporate DR education into their curricula, little research has been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of educational outcomes. Increased integration of DR content into NP education is needed, including increased educational research on teaching DR competencies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was included in this review, as the public is generally not familiar with DR or its teaching approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".