Educators' perspectives of adopting virtual patient online learning tools to teach clinical reasoning in medical schools: a qualitative study

Background: Learning tools using virtual patients can be used to teach clinical reasoning (CR) skills and overcome limitations of using face-to-face methods. However, the adoption of new tools is often challenging. The aim of this study was to explore UK medical educators' perspectives of what influences the adoption of virtual patient learning tools to teach CR.

Methods: A qualitative research study using semi-structured telephone interviews with medical educators in the UK with control over teaching materials of CR was conducted. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), commonly used in healthcare services implementation research was adapted to inform the analysis. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Thirteen medical educators participated in the study. Three themes were identified from the data that influenced adoption: the wider context (outer setting); perceptions about the innovation; and the medical school (inner context). Participants' recognition of situations as opportunities or barriers related to their prior experiences of implementing online learning tools. For example, participants with experience of teaching using online tools viewed limited face-to-face placements as opportunities to introduce innovations using virtual patients. Beliefs that virtual patients may not mirror real-life consultations and perceptions of a lack of evidence for them could be barriers to adoption. Adoption was also influenced by the implementation climate of the setting, including positioning of CR in curricula; relationships between faculty, particularly where faculty were dispersed.

Conclusions: By adapting an implementation framework for health services, we were able to identify features of educators, teaching processes and medical schools that may determine the adoption of teaching innovations using virtual patients. These include access to face-to-face teaching opportunities, positioning of clinical reasoning in the curriculum, relationship between educators and institutions and decision-making processes. Framing virtual patient learning tools as additional rather than as a replacement for face-to-face teaching could reduce resistance. Our adapted framework from healthcare implementation science may be useful in future studies of implementation in medical education.