PURPOSE
Traditional medical education focuses on organ system-based instruction
that leaves students with a knowledge gap when integrating multiple systems.
This is important for both testing purposes and clinical applications. This
study aims to evaluate the educational value of a Theoretical Patient Case
Competition, which requires students to synthesize an imagined case that
integrates multiple organ systems. We hypothesize that participation will
significantly enhance students’ self-assessed ability to connect concepts,
deepen their physiological understanding, and improve critical thinking. We
further aim to assess overall satisfaction with the format, design, and
perceived utility of the competition.
METHODS
This descriptive, prospective observational study will evaluate the
perceived impact of the competition. The competition involves students at the
Medical College of Georgia in their final pre-clerkship module. Data will be
collected via an anonymous online survey which includes Likert-scale items
and open-ended questions. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics
to summarize the participants’ self-reported perceptions of the intervention.
RESULTS
Quantitative analysis demonstrates high student satisfaction, with a median
score of 5.0 for items assessing improved critical thinking, concept
connection, and physiological understanding. Additionally, all respondents
agreed that this competition was a valuable supplement to the curriculum.
Respondents each strongly agreed that presenting their case was a valuable
experience. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that the creative process
required “bottom-up” clinical reasoning, challenging students to think
differently from the typical diagnostic framework and better understand
pathophysiology.
CONCLUSIONS
While limited by sample size, preliminary findings suggest the Theoretical
Patient Case Competition is a feasible and effective tool for fostering
multisystem integration and student learning. The strong scores for
self-assessed learning gains support the hypothesis that student-authored
cases enhance conceptual synthesis and critical thinking. Future iterations
will incorporate student feedback to further refine and evaluate this active
learning strategy.