Objective：The previous study was to develop the“Itamikei”, a small machine which patients can use to record their subjective level of pain. And new assessment tool“Tablet PC application for Pain Memory”, which enable the user to visualize and record the pain levels both instantly and over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of Pain Memory as a pain assessment tool for patients with cancer pain. Method：12 inpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain, were instructed to input their pain level into Pain Memory over a 2-week period, and the resulting graph was reviewed by the patient and staff. They also completed a questionnaire evaluating the design, function and pain assessment of the tool. Result：The patients input their pain level into Pain Memory 5.25 times／day（Md）, which provided increased opportunities to ascertain the patient’s pain level compared to that“Itamikei”. The design and function of the Pain Memory were given approximately rate 4 using a 5 point scale by both patients and staff members. Moreover, using Pain Memory, the patients highly rated the parameter“I understood changes in pain”, and the staff members highly rated the parameter“Patients participating in the treatment of pain”. Conclusion：We found Pain Memory could be useful in the assessment of pain. It provided more opportunities to ascertain the pain level of patients, and enabled the visualization of the pain level through a graph.

Background: Japanese medical student education lacks emphasis on teaching clinical reasoning skills. To partially remedy this situation, we developed a prototypic web-based module for tutors to teach clinical reasoning. We report the medical students’ opinions of this module.
Methods: Twenty-four students from two Japanese medical universities were randomly assigned to the two tutored virtual classrooms, each classroom with six students, or to the self-study group, 12 students, after taking the Internet-based Sequential Question and Answer pretest. After four weeks, each of the 24 students took the Sequential Question and Answer posttest. The entire 24 students answered a questionnaire about the Sequential Question and Answer tests; all 12 tutored students answered a questionnaire about the web-based tutored module.
Results: Although both tutored and self-study Sequential Question and Answer posttest scores increased, the increases of the tutored group’s posttest compared to the self-study posttest group were not statistically significant (p = 0.066). Ninety-two percent of the students rated the Sequential Question and Answer tests as an improved way to learn case presentation and clinical reasoning. Moreover, 79% of students felt that the Sequential Question and Answer tests were an effective way to learn clinical information. The tutored students rated the web-based tutored seminars as an ‘excellent to fair’ method to learn clinical reasoning using a five-point ‘excellent to poor’ scale.
Conclusions: We developed a prototypic web-based module for tutors to teach clinical reasoning to medical students. The students’ opinion supported the modular components of the web-based seminar format, Sequential Question and Answer test, and the tutoring syllabus as an effective way to improve learning clinical reasoning, case presentation, and medical information. Students also suggested refinements of the prototypic module.

Background: At present clinical reasoning skills are not systematically taught in Japanese medical universities. We developed a prototypic preliminary module for clinical tutors to introduce clinical reasoning to Japanese medical students. We hypothesized that tutored medical students would outperform self-study students.
Method: Using the web-based Sequential Question and Answer test that rewarded history and differential diagnosis as proxies for clinical reasoning, we compared the pre and posttest scores of 12 randomized fifth grade tutored students at two universities during four tutor-led 1.5-hour web-based seminars using a structured syllabus to 12 randomized self-study students.
Results: The tutored and self-study groups’ pretest scores were statistically similar at about 40 out of 100 weighted correct points. The tutored students’ posttest scores were 62 points, significantly greater (p = 0.007) than the pretest mean 42 points, compared to the self-study students’ posttest scores of 52 points, significantly greater (p = 0.012) than pretest mean 40 points. The difference between the two posttest groups was of borderline statistical significance (p = 0.08).
Conclusions: We successfully assessed a prototypic module for tutors to introduce clinical reasoning to Japanese medical students. The tutored students achieved higher scores than the self-study students. Further research is needed to exploit the potential of our modular clinical reasoning system.