Subjects / Medicine
Written clinical reasoning, assessed in context
Follow how students connect findings, alternatives and conclusions in a written case. Lectora drafts against your examiner guidance; you review the clinical reasoning.
Illustrative assessment example
Fictional work and authored feedback, shown to explain the workflow.
Teaching case 07 · Fictional
Written clinical case
History and presentation
A fictional 62-year-old has had kidney disease for three years, fatigue for six weeks and an infection two weeks ago. Medication has been unchanged for six months.
| Finding | Three months ago → now |
|---|---|
| Hb (g/L) | 110 → 96 (case range: 120–160) |
| eGFR | 38 → 37 mL/min/1.73 m² |
| CRP (mg/L) | 4 → 32 (case range: <5) |
Student's reasoning, excerpt
“I rank a chronic renal contribution first: Hb was already low and kidney function is similar. Recent inflammation comes second: CRP rose after the infection. Neither establishes why Hb fell further; iron status is not supplied.”
Task: prioritise the explanations and justify your reasoning.
Explore the example
Read the answer against the whole case
Kidney disease predates the fatigue. The infection occurred later, and medication has been unchanged for six months.
- Example marking criterion
- Use the supplied timeline to support and qualify the argument.
Example feedback for review
You distinguish a longstanding condition from a recent event. Also address why fatigue began before the infection; the timeline limits what that event alone can explain.
You check the reading, the reasoning and the proposed assessment.
What should the written reasoning demonstrate?
Use the course's assessment criteria to define what a well-supported answer should contain. These examples concern written assessment, not decisions about patient care.
Use of case information
Ask the student to identify relevant observations and explain why they matter to the case question. Your marking guidance defines which information should carry weight.
Alternatives and justification
Specify how an answer should compare plausible explanations and justify its priorities. Review the student's reasoning against those expectations rather than treating the AI draft as clinical authority.
Uncertainty and communication
Include criteria for acknowledging missing information, stating limits and communicating a coherent argument. The examiner judges whether the written response meets the course's standards.
From submitted work to a draft you can review
How Lectora reads the documentsProvide the work
Bring the submissions, assignment and examiner guidance into the assessment.
Read in context
Lectora works with supported files and relevant available course material.
Draft the assessment
A proposed score and written feedback give you a starting point for review.
Review and publish
You check and edit. A qualified examiner approves each grade before it reaches Canvas.
Questions from educators
Bring your written case assessment
Explore how your case questions and examiner guidance shape the draft you review in Canvas.
Request accessThis is a fictional teaching case with authored example feedback. Read the separate medicine case for the published study's scope and results.
Read the pilot story and its status