|
Indian Pediatr 2017;54:288 -290 |
 |
Use of SNAPPS Model for
Pediatric Outpatient Education
|
Anju Kapoor, *Anil Kapoor, Ashish Kalraiya and Sheela
Longia
From Departments of Pediatrics and *Medicine,
People’s College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh, India.
Correspondence to: Dr Anju Kapoor, HIG A/9, PCMS
Campus, Bhanpur, Bhopal 462 037, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Email: [email protected]
Received: April 09, 2016;
Initial Review: July 15, 2016;
Accepted: February 09, 2017 .
|
Objective: To assess and compare the educational effectiveness of
SNAPPS model with traditional method in developing reasoning skills of
Pediatric residents in Out-patient department.
Methods: 40 case presentations with 4 residents
(20 each with traditional and SNAPPS methods) were audiotaped and
compared with respect to making differentials, reasoning for analyzing
differentials, raising uncertainties by probing preceptor, and selecting
case-related issues for self study. Residents feedback was collected
using a self-designed proforma.
Results: Residents made more differentials
(median 3.0 vs 1.5; P<0.001), exhibited more clinical
reasoning for analyzing differentials (P<0.001), raised
uncertainties more often by probing preceptors (15/20 vs 1/20;
P<0.001) and selected case related issues for self-study (12/20
vs 0/20; P<0.001) with SNAPPS compared to traditional case
presentations. Residents found SNAPPS relevant to ambulatory teaching.
Conclusion: SNAPPS promotes clinical reasoning
and self-directed learning.
Keywords: Clinical decision-making, Educational model,
Graduate medical education.
|
T eaching medical students and residents in
ambulatory settings/Out-patient Department (OPD) is an integral part of
medical education. However, it has been found to be unsatisfactory and
characterized by variability, unpredictability, immediacy, and lack of
continuity [1,2]. Passive role of learners, and exchange of factual
information without much clinical reasoning have also been identified
[3,4]. SNAPPS (Summarize history and findings; Narrow differentials;
Analyze differentials; Probe preceptor about uncertainties; Plan
management; Select case-related issues for self-study), a
learner-centered model, modifies the learning encounter by condensing
the reporting of facts while encouraging clinical reasoning [5].
The purpose of the present study was to assess the
educational effectiveness of SNAPPS model in comparison to traditional
method for training pediatric residents in the OPD-setting at a teaching
hospital.
Methods
We conducted this comparative study after
Institutional Ethics Committee’s approval and recruited all second - and
third-year pediatric residents (annual intake, 2 postgraduates), after
informed written consent. Informed consent was also taken from parents
of patients involved in the study.
We audiotaped 20 case presentations by residents in
the Pediatric OPD of our institute, using traditional method with
faculty being unaware of SNAPPS model. Subsequently, we conducted a
mini-workshop to sensitize faculty and residents to the SNAPPS model
with video demonstration, role-play, and discussion to clarify queries.
We subsequently audiotaped 20 case presentations using SNAPPS by the
same residents. All residents made equal presentations, and with
apparently similar difficulty level of patients in both sessions
(difficulty levels decided as per expert faculty consensus).
We allotted identification numbers to all
presentations and sequenced them randomly. Two investigators analyzed
and coded the recordings independently using a predesigned checklist.
Subsequently, they tallied the coding and in case of any discrepancy
they listened it together to reach to a consensus.
We took residents’ feedback using a structured
proforma with closed ended questions answered on a 5-point Likert scale,
and open-ended questions.
Number of encounters (20 with each method) were taken
as units for analysis. We calculated median and inter-quartile range
(IQR). We applied Mann Whitney U Test to compare medians and z test for
two sample proportion, with P=0.05 as the level of significance.
We used SPSS 19.0 for analysis.
Results
Four residents (2 nd
and 3rd year) and three
faculty members participated in case discussions. Each resident had five
encounters in both the groups. Data were analyzed on six outcome
categories, further subdivided into 11 variables (Table I).
Though total case discussion time was more in SNAPPS as compared to
traditional method, time taken for case summarization was almost equal
in both; extra time was spent in active discussion with SNAPPS.
Evaluations regarding completeness of history and completeness of
relevant physical examination revealed better results with SNAPPS method
(P=0.008 and 0.025, respectively).
TABLE I Comparison of Case Presentations with Traditional and SNAPPS Methods
Outcomes |
Traditional method (n = 20) |
SNAPPS method (n = 20) |
P value |
Summarize the case |
|
|
|
*Total case-discussion time (min) |
3.44 (3.14-4.61) |
5.17 (4.31-5.69) |
0.002 |
*Case-presentation time (min) |
1.21 (1.06-2.05) |
1.34 (1.24-1.64) |
0.542 |
Completeness of history |
9 (45) |
17 (85) |
0.008 |
Completeness of physical examination |
8 (40) |
15 (75) |
0.025 |
Narrow down the differentials |
|
|
|
*Diagnosis made by learner for each case |
1.5 (1.0-2.0) |
3.0 (3.0-4.0) |
<0.001 |
Analyze the differentials |
|
|
|
*Justifications made for first diagnosis |
0 (0.0-1.0) |
2.5 (1.0-4.0) |
<0.001 |
*Justifications made for differentials |
0 (0.0-1.0) |
4.0 (2.75-5.25) |
<0.001 |
Probe the preceptor |
|
|
|
Learner raised the uncertainties |
1 (5) |
15 (75) |
<0.001 |
Plan the management |
|
|
|
Learner initiated plan for investigation |
0 (0) |
13 (65) |
<0.001 |
Learner initiated plan for treatment |
2 (10) |
18 (90) |
<0.001 |
Selection of issues for self-study |
|
|
|
Learner selected issues for self-study |
0 (0) |
12 (60) |
<0.001 |
*Values in median (IQR), rest in No. (%). |
Residents initiated making differentials in all
(20/20) SNAPPS presentations compared to only two (2/20) in traditional
method. Of the remaining 18 traditional case presentations, preceptor
elicited the differentials in 17 and no diagnosis was made in one case.
In addition, the preceptors also raised more uncertainties in
traditional than SNAPPS presentations (11 vs 8), supporting
preceptor’s dominance in traditional case presentations. Topics for
self-study were selected only with SNAPPS model, though
only in 60% cases.
Residents perceived that SNAPPS model was more
structured, stimulating, relevant to teaching in the OPD, and easy to
follow. They felt confident in making differentials with clinical
reasoning, and motivated for self-directed learning. They read most,
though not all, selected topics for self-study. One resident found the
encounters to be stressful initially.
Discussion
In this comparative study of SNAPPS model and
traditional teaching of four residents in the OPD setting, we observed
that SNAPPS model motivated pediatric residents to think actively,
reason out more differentials, raise their uncertainties, and select
case-related issues for self-study. Our study found case presentations
to be more complete with SNAPPS.
Limitations of present study include small number of
residents and few training sessions. We did not check how much learning
occurred on topics selected for self-study, which can be an area of
future research.
The results in present study are in accordance with
the original study by Wolpaw, et al. [6]. In their follow-up
study, they demonstrated that students in SNAPPS group raised more
uncertainties about diagnostic reasoning and received more preceptors’
feedback [7]. Our residents agreed that the corrective feedback from
faculty improved their reasoning skills; similar result has been
reported previously [8]. Stress among residents during SNAPPS
presentations was also reported in a previous study [9]. SNAPPS has also
been adapted for indoor-teaching as a whole or in components [10], and
in different cultural settings [9]. SNAPPS, ensures explicit analysis of
the differentials, and adds two more steps to traditional teaching –
probing the preceptor for uncertainties and selecting case related
topics for self-study. These experiences provide experiential learning
to be applied in future [11]. When preceptors seek their students’
thought process, learners increase their own expression of clinical
thinking and reasoning [4].
To conclude, the present study suggests that SNAPPS
model is an efficient teaching-learning tool to promote clinical
reasoning. It can be used effectively in a busy OPD where preceptor gets
multiple, short-duration teaching-opportunities between patient care. It
allows a paradigm shift of teacher-centered precepting to
learner-centered learning.
Contributors: Anju K: conceptualized the
study, drafted the initial manuscript, did literature search, data
collection and data analysis, and revised the manuscript. She will act
as guarantor of the work and paper; Anil K: developed the study-design,
literature search, did data analysis, and initial drafting of
manuscript; AK and SL: data-collection, and literature- search.
All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: None; Competing interests: None
stated.
What This Study Adds?
• SNAPPS is an efficient teaching/learning
tool that promotes clinical reasoning and self-directed learning
amongst pediatric postgraduates in OPD setting.
|
References
1. Irby DM. Clinical teaching and clinical teacher. J
Med Educ. 1986;61:35-45.
2. Irby DM. Teaching and learning in ambulatory care
settings: A thematic review of the literature. Acad Med.
1995;70:898-931.
3. Foley R, Smilansky J, Yonke A. A teacher–student
interaction in a medical clerkship. J Med Educ. 1979;54:622-6.
4. Connell KJ, Bordage G, Chang RW, Howard BA,
Sinacore J. Measuring the promotion of thinking during precepting
encounters in outpatient settings. Acad Med. 1999;74; S10-2.
5. Wolpaw TM, Wolpaw DR, Papp KK. SNAPPS: A
learner-centered model for outpatient education. Acad Med.
2003;78:893-98.
6. Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G. Using SNAPPS to
facilitate the expression of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: A
randomized comparison group trial. Acad Med. 2009;84:517-24.
7. Wolpaw T, Cote L, Papp KK, Bordage G. Student
uncertainties drive teaching during case presentations: More so with
SNAPPS. Acad Med. 2012;87:1210-7.
8. Okubo Y, Nomura K, Saito H, Saito N, Yoshioka T.
Reflection and feedback in ambulatory education. ClinTeach.
2014;11:355-60.
9. Sawanyawisuth K, Schwartz A, Wolpaw T, Bordage G.
Expressing clinical reasoning and uncertainties during a Thai internal
medicine ambulatory care rotation: Does the SNAPPS technique generalize?
Med Teach. 2015;37:379-84.
10. Pascoe JM, Nixon J, Lang VJ. Maximizing teaching
on the wards: Review and application of the One–minute preceptor and
SNAPPS models. J Hosp Med. 2015;10:125-30.
11. Eva KW, Neville AJ, Norman GR. Exploring the
etiology of content specificity: factors influencing analogic transfer
and problem solving. Acad Med. 1998;73: S1-5.
|
|
 |
|