Case presentation methods: a randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus snapps in a controlled setting

• Autor(a) principal: Eleonora d. T.fagundes
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Cássio c. Ibiapina, Cristina g. Alvim, Rachel Aparecida Ferreira Fernandes, Marco Antônio Carvalho-filho, Paul l. p. Brand
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFMG
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/54990
• topic: SNAPPS; One-minute preceptor; Case presentation; Clinical reasoning; Raciocínio Clínico; Relatos de Casos

Introduction One-minute preceptor (OMP) andSNAPPS (a mnemonic for Summarize history andfindings; Narrow the differential; Analyze the differential; Probe the preceptor about uncertainties; Plan management; and Select case-related issues for self study) are educational techniques developed to pro mote learners’ expression of clinical reasoning duringthe case presentation in the workplace. The aim ofthis present study was to compare the content of thecase presentation between the SNAPPS and the OMP methods.Methods This was a randomized controlled trial com paring SNAPPS and OMP in 60 medical students at the beginning of their fifth year of medical school. After an introduction session, students presented anddiscussed two cases based on real patients and provided in written format. All case presentations were recorded and evaluated by two researchers. The assessed elements of the case presentations were di vided into three subgroups related to expression of clinical reasoning, time and initiative to guide the presentation.Results There were 30 participants in each group.There was no difference in the expression of clinical reasoning between OMP and SNAPPS groups (num ber of differential diagnoses, justification of most likely diagnosis and differential diagnosis, expression of comparing and contrasting hypotheses). However, students in the SNAPPS group expressed significantly more questions and uncertainties (p< 0.001), and more often took the initiative to present and justifythe most likely diagnosis, differential diagnosis and management plan than students in the OMP group, both in simple and complex cases (all p values <0.001) without extending the length of the teaching session. Conclusion OMP and SNAPPS equally promote med ical students’ expression of clinical reasoning. The SNAPPS technique was more effective than the OMP technique in helping students to take on an active role during case presentation. We propose SNAPPS as an effective learning tool, engaging students and promot ing the expression of their clinical reasoning as part of a case presentation.