(1) Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to the effective practice of autonomous health professionals and is, therefore, an essential capability to develop as students. This review aimed to systematically identify the tools available to health professional educators to evaluate students’ attainment of clinical reasoning capabilities in clinical placement and simulation settings. (2) Methods: A systemic review of seven databases was undertaken. Peer-reviewed, English-language publications reporting studies that developed or tested relevant tools were included. Searches included multiple terms related to clinical reasoning and health disciplines. Data regarding each tool’s conceptual basis and evaluated constructs were systematically extracted and analysed. (3) Results: Most of the 61 included papers evaluated students in medical and nursing disciplines, and over half reported on the Script Concordance Test or Lasater Clinical Judgement Rubric. A number of conceptual frameworks were referenced, though many papers did not reference any framework. (4) Conclusions: Overall, key outcomes highlighted an emphasis on diagnostic reasoning, as opposed to management reasoning. Tools were predominantly aligned with individual health disciplines and with limited cross-referencing within the field. Future research into clinical reasoning evaluation tools should build on and refer to existing approaches and consider contributions across professional disciplinary divides.

Objectives: Grit, resilience and a growth‐mindset influence students' ability to positively adapt to the challenges of health professional training. However, it is unclear if interventions can improve these traits. This systematic review aimed to explore if interventions can improve these traits in health professional students (primary) and their impact on academic and/or wellbeing outcomes (secondary). Methods: A comprehensive search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Eric and Embase was conducted from inception until 15 March 2023. Randomised or non‐randomised controlled trials and single‐group intervention studies that aimed to improve health professional students' resilience, grit and/or growth‐mindset were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and evaluated quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Post‐intervention data from randomised and non‐randomised control trials were pooled using a random‐effects model to calculate standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Resilience interventions improved resilience by a moderate amount in 13 studies with 990 participants (pooled SMD 0.74, 95%CI 0.03 to 1.46) and a large amount when interventions were greater than one session duration in 10 trials with 740 participants (pooled SMD 0.97, 95%CI 0.08 to 1.85). Grit and growth‐mindset interventions improved grit (pooled SMD 0.48, 95%CI −0.05 to 1.00, n = 2) and growth‐mindset (pooled SMD 0.25, 95%CI −0.18 to 0.68, n = 2) by a small amount. Resilience interventions decreased perceived stress by a small amount (pooled SMD −0.38, 95%CI −0.62 to −0.14, n = 5). Conclusions: Resilience interventions improve resilience and decrease perceived stress in health professional students. Preliminary evidence suggests grit and growth‐mindset interventions may also benefit health professional students. Interventions may be most effective when they are longer than one session and targeted to students with low baseline levels of resilience and grit.

Introduction Simulation-based clinical education often aims to replicate varying aspects of real clinical practice. It is unknown whether learners’ stress levels in simulation are comparable with those in clinical practice. The current study compared acute stress markers during simulation-based clinical education with that experienced in situ in a hospital-based environment. Methods Undergraduate physiotherapy students’ (n = 33) acute stress responses [visual analog scales of stress and anxiety, continuous heart rate (HR), and saliva cortisol] were assessed during matched patient encounters in simulation-based laboratories using standardized patients and during hospital clinical placements with real patients. Group differences in stress variables were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance for 3 time points (before, during the patient encounter, and after) at 2 settings (simulation and hospital). Results Visual analog scale stress and anxiety as well as HR increased significantly from baseline levels before the encounter in both settings (all P < 0.05). Stress and anxiety were significantly higher in simulation [mean (SD), 45 (22) and 44 (25) mm; P = 0.003] compared with hospital [mean (SD), 31 (21) and 26 (20) mm; P = 0.002]. The mean (SD) HR during the simulation patient encounter was 90 (16) beats per minute and was not different compared with hospital [mean (SD), 87 (15) beats per minute; P = 0.89]. Changes in salivary cortisol before and after patient encounters were not statistically different between settings [mean (SD) simulation, 1.5 (2.4) nmol/L; hospital, 2.5 (2.9) nmol/L; P = 0.70]. Conclusions Participants’ experienced stress on clinical placements, irrespective of the clinical education setting (simulation vs. hospital). This study revealed that psychological stress and anxiety were greater during simulation compared with hospital settings; however, physiological stress responses (HR and cortisol) were comparable. These results indicate that psychological stress may be heightened in simulation, and health professional educators need to consider the impact of this on learners in simulation-based clinical education. New learners in their clinical education program may benefit from a less stressful simulation environment, before a gradual increase in stress demands as they approach clinical practice.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between noncognitive traits (grit, resilience, and mindset-type), academic success, and clinical performance in physical therapist students. This cross-sectional study using self-administered surveys was undertaken with final-year physical therapist students enrolled in 4 Australian universities. Participants completed validated questionnaires measuring grit, resilience, and mindset type. Academic transcripts were obtained to quantify academic success and clinical performance. A multiple regression analysis explored predictors of academic success and clinical performance in relation to sociodemographic factors, grit, resilience, and mindset type. A total of 266 students participated in the study (80% recruitment rate). Overall, 25% of students had low resilience, 20% had low grit, and 14% had a fixed mindset type. Grittiness was positively associated with academic success (r = 0.24) and clinical performance (r = 0.22) and negatively associated with failing a clinical placement (r = ‐0.20). Grit was an independent predictor of overall academic success (β = 0.24, P ≤ .01) and clinical performance (β = 0.15). Students with low grit were twice as likely to fail a clinical placement compared with students with moderate or high grit (risk ratio = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.06 to 3.89). Grit was an independent predictor for overall academic success and clinical performance in final-year physical therapist students. Low grit may impact negatively on learning and students’ ability to cope with challenges associated with university studies and clinical education. Further studies should investigate interventions that best develop grit in health professional students and the overlapping nature of grit, resilience, and a growth mindset. This study helps universities and educators understand noncognitive factors predicting academic success and clinical performance in physical therapist students. Universities and clinical educators may consider screening and providing proactive strategies for students with low grit to improve success and general wellbeing.

Despite the recent widespread adoption of simulation in clinical education in physiotherapy, there is a lack of validated tools for assessment in this setting. The Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP) is a comprehensive tool used in clinical placement settings in Australia to measure professional competence of physiotherapy students. The aim of the study was to evaluate the validity of the APP for student assessment in simulation settings. A total of 1260 APPs were collected, 971 from students in simulation and 289 from students in clinical placements. Rasch analysis was used to examine the construct validity of the APP tool in three different simulation assessment formats: longitudinal assessment over 1 week of simulation; longitudinal assessment over 2 weeks; and a short-form (25 min) assessment of a single simulation scenario. Comparison with APPs from 5 week clinical placements in hospital and clinic-based settings were also conducted. The APP demonstrated acceptable fit to the expectations of the Rasch model for the 1 and 2 week clinical simulations, exhibiting unidimensional properties that were able to distinguish different levels of student performance. For the short-form simulation, nine of the 20 items recorded greater than 25 % of scores as ‘not-assessed’ by clinical educators which impacted on the suitability of the APP tool in this simulation format. The APP was a valid assessment tool when used in longitudinal simulation formats. A revised APP may be required for assessment in short-form simulation scenarios.