Why are the modules designed with the Case Commentaries after the Information Section, rather than right after the Cases?
This format of the modules uses the Cases to raise important clinical questions and stimulate recall of similar cases from the practice experience of the physicians in the group. Encouraging groups to ask these questions, and then try to provide their own explanations/answers, facilitates understanding and subsequent recall of “new knowledge”. If discussion about potential solutions and exploration of alternatives is “short-circuited” by the prompt provision of an “answer” (i.e., Case Commentary), we may not build the necessary “networks” between patient examples and relevant information that we need in order to apply it to subsequent patients seen in practice. Many groups build on this by agreeing to read only the Cases and the Information Section before the group discussion. Then, only after the group has worked to develop their own “best approach”, do they read the Case Commentary. The commentary is not intended to be “the answer”. Rather, it contains suggestions of one or more ways
Related Questions
- I clicked on the SCHEDULE TAB to get to my TASK MANAGER and my CONTACT LIST MANAGER and I do not see those tabs in the bottom right section of WorkCenter anymore. How do I get that view back?
- What made the 1970 German hospital smallpox case airborne versus other cases? How big or small do dust particles have to be to make variola airborne from droplet nuclei?
- What limitations are placed on a debtor’s right to use, sell, or lease its property during a Chapter 11 case?
Why are the modules designed with the Case Commentaries after the Information Section, rather than right after the Cases?