Clinical Learning System

A clinical learning system makes the ward the syllabus: the patients you actually saw today decide what you study tonight. What accumulates, case by case, is a picture of each illness detailed enough that the next person carrying it arrives as a variation on something you already hold rather than as new material. That is why the evening goes to the case you met rather than to the chapter you were behind on — the encounter is what gives the reading somewhere to attach. It shows up at the door, when a good part of what you need for the person in front of you is already assembled.

Patient, dump, branch

Patients are a learning resource. Every history, examination, and result contains material to study, if your examination skills are good enough to find it. A careless examination gives you little to study. Fix your examination skills first, then run the loop. Specialties that see patients directly have the encounters as part of the work. Imaging and laboratory work do not have them, unless the day’s cases can still be used as the syllabus.

Among the topics this week’s patients raise, order barely matters. Curriculum maps and off-service lists still exist. For a specialist exam, almost anything connected to the patients you have seen can eventually be examined, though this is not true of every exam. Order Control is the vault’s name for studying in order of relevance instead of in syllabus order. A ward is one place it applies. Practice on a rotation is already interleaved: the mix of cases comes from the work, and nobody has to design it. Common conditions and their variations come up dozens of times. So when you study the material that recurs most, you get spaced, interleaved retrieval without extra effort, if you notice the recurrence and use it. Spaced Interleaved Retrieval is the named system to use when recurrence is not enough. The loop is built for a specific clinical problem. A finite set of conditions produces an unbounded number of permutations. A shortage of core facts is usually not the difficulty. The usual failure is being unable to apply and interleave what you already know, and being unable to learn more from the patient in front of you than that one encounter covers.

Let the patient decide the order. From today’s patient, list every possible learning point and pick the biggest, most common, most dangerous, or most examinable one. Illness-script teaching worksheets start the same way. The choice does not need to be perfect, because you will extend the map from it anyway. Each branch is a question you write yourself and answer as you study the case. This is the vault’s version of Inquiry Based Learning: write the questions, then go find the answers.

That evening, write out the patient’s journey from memory with your sources closed. This written account is the dump. Mapping the obvious variations of one learning point takes about a couple of hours, and those hours are the study session. A reader who expects it to take twenty minutes will stop on the first night and decide the system does not work. Map the chosen point from start to finish at your current level: etiology, history, investigations, differentials, management, follow-up. The dump is an illness script: enabling conditions, fault, consequences. Write down whatever you know. Leave the gaps visible.

At every decision point, write out the branches. On a medical case the branches are like these: positive versus negative scan; infection versus none; resistant versus typical microbe; impaired versus normal healing. On a procedure they are like these: if the cut moves off its line, what structure is at risk; why this plane; why this decision and not the neighbouring one. A dose gives branches in the same way: what an overdose does, what an underdose does, and then the observation that drugs with a similar mechanism have similar side-effect patterns. The web of variations is what this work produces and what you keep. Each branch is a reason to revise a related topic, such as cytokine pathways, antibiotic profiles, or pharmacology. Studying a tedious topic in the context of a real patient makes it feel relevant.

Study one branch at a time. Covering half a branch in a day is fine. The goal is not to complete the web. Trying to cover every branch makes the system inefficient. After one or two days, pick a new patient whose condition overlaps a branch you have already mapped, and build again from the overlap. As a teaching default, this is about twice a week.

What the web is for

In weeks three and four, areas that overlap heavily start to feel strong because they come up again and again. In months one and two, each new patient adds less uncertainty than the patients before, because variables repeat and branches fill in faster. These timelines are coaching estimates and were not measured. The experience they describe is real. They are sometimes used to support calculations, and they cannot support them.

Mapping variations does not count as seeing more patients. Rehearsing a branch in your head is not the same as seeing a patient. Mapping prepares you for the next real case so you learn more from it. This is called priming, and it does not emulate a patient encounter. A resident who skips real cases to draw more branches has reversed how the system is meant to work. You cannot skip the years of cases that senior clinicians have seen. You can start building now the structure they already have, which is organised scripts.

The benefit of the system comes through priming. When tomorrow’s patient follows a branch you already mapped, the encounter is review and re-encoding, and you do not meet it as new. When you already know tomorrow’s list, such as a named procedure or a named clinic, prime yourself on the patient type and the flow so you can follow the encounter in real time. Expand the web afterwards. Three named wastes lead to walking in unprimed: not priming tomorrow’s list; not using today’s cases as the starting point for tonight’s work; not mapping the common variations you are likely to meet within a day or two, so the next case has to be encoded as entirely new. Walking in unprimed wastes a large share of what the encounter could teach, in the same way that going to a lecture unprimed does. This short priming pass is Prestudy with a patient as the syllabus.

Common, one flow, downtime

Study common conditions, not rare ones. This is a rule for spending time on a rotation that leaves little of it. It does not claim that knowing about rare conditions is worthless. Learn in depth the conditions you will see again this week. Rare diseases studied only out of obligation end up as facts you can recite and seldom use. On a general surgical placement, the conditions that recur most are diverticulitis, appendicitis, and cholecystitis. Near the end of the rotation, go through the curriculum once to find the small points that patient-led study did not cover. Rare conditions are studied in that final pass.

Study one flow at a time. This rule is how you cope when everyone gives you every topic at once. Expect to fall behind for about two weeks, catch up around week five, and then get ahead. This is a coaching timeline and was not measured. The part worth keeping is the social problem it names: consultants give you more topics than you can cover in a week.

In weeks with little time, study in very short sessions. On call, this loop combines with the Microlearning System, the cycle for downtime: a five-stage loop that carries on across short free periods, here with the patient as the priming material. Combining the two means replacing two specific steps. The patient plus a bare map replaces the scope step. Choosing which part of the flow to work on replaces the resource step. Each five-minute free period covers one node: one management option, then its variation, then the effect of a comorbidity. This version is advanced and tiring, and you cannot keep it up for long. Use it when you have no free evenings.

The loop works at the level of strategy. It sets what to learn and when. The studying itself still uses whatever encoding method you already use to turn a branch into a map. Bear Hunter System is that encoding method, defined by what it does: a rough frame, the questions the material must answer, a working map of connections, and a reduced structure that still works without the source. If your encoding is below that level, take the principles loosely and do not run the loop strictly.

The test for whether the loop suits a reader has five conditions: a high volume to learn; mixed experience every day, so the interleaving comes without extra work; a current conflict between what work demands and what the exam demands; almost no study time; retrieval that has to work at more than one order. A reader who fails two or more of the five should use the principles and not run the loop strictly. Clinicians, residents, and clinical students with a high volume to learn and almost no study time usually meet the conditions.

There are three situations where the loop should not be used. Your encoding is not yet fluent, so you cannot turn a branch into a map. The work is not patient-facing and the day’s cases cannot be the syllabus. The web is being used as a substitute for seeing patients. The costs are a couple of hours per dump, two weeks of falling behind, and a combined on-call version that is tiring. Signs that you should stop: trying to cover every branch; a week of webs with no overlap with the next day’s cases; two nights of mapping followed by no matching encounter the next day. If a first week produces no overlap with the next day’s cases, the loop has failed. The reader has not.

Interleaving for Complex Problem Solving applies the same logic outside medicine: reconstructing a solution when the variables change.

If tomorrow’s patient follows a branch you have mapped, the encounter is review. Whether the system works is shown by the next real patient, and the web cannot show it.

Open Questions

Does mapping three or four variations per case change diagnostic accuracy, or only organisation?

How should a reader on a specialty with a large off-service list adapt “order barely matters”?

Links

• Microlearning System: the downtime cycle this loop combines with on call. It is a five-stage cycle that carries on across short free periods, here with the patient as the priming material
• Order Control: letting the patient decide the order is one application of studying in order of relevance instead of syllabus order
• Inquiry Based Learning: each branch is a question you write yourself and answer as you study
• Spaced Interleaved Retrieval: clinical recurrence gives you this without extra work; it is the named system when recurrence is not enough
• Interleaving for Complex Problem Solving: the same logic of reconstructing a solution when the variables change, outside medicine
• Prestudy: priming for tomorrow’s cases is prestudy with a patient as the syllabus
• Bear Hunter System: the encoding method each branch’s study session uses

Sources

• Thistlethwaite, J. E., et al. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. Medical Education.
• Dornan, T., et al. (2007). Experience-based learning: a model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students’ workplace learning. Medical Education.
• Bowen, J. L. (2006). Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. New England Journal of Medicine.
• Lubarsky, S., Dory, V., Audétat, M.-C., Custers, E., & Charlin, B. (2015). Using script theory to cultivate illness script formation and clinical reasoning in health professions education. Medical Teacher.
• Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2007). How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Medical Education.
• Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review.
• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin.
• Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (pre-training principle).
• Eva, K. W. (2005). What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Medical Education. Norman, G. (2005). Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Medical Education.