The «Standardized Patient» in Student Education
129 164
Keywords:
standardized patient, interactive learning, students, clinical scenarios, real patients, clinical skills, educational process.Abstract
The aim of the work was to study the use of «standardized patients» in the process of interactive teaching of students. When using «standardized patients» in teaching, teachers of
medical universities will be able to control the educational process, create new working curricula taking into account the use of innovative technologies. As a result of this method, it is possible to plan specific learning outcomes through the use of clinical scenarios, as opposed to unplanned consultations in real conditions, depending on real patients. Trainees have the opportunity to practice complex counseling without risking the risk of harm to real patients. A standardized patient
dramatizes / simulates a clinical case (clinical task), according to a given clinical scenario.
Translated from English, «standart» – hence «standardized», i.e. this patient must strictly follow and simulate a particular clinical scenario strictly within the «gold standard» prescribed in his
clinical scenario. The inclusion of the joint venture in the educational process gives: The opportunity to plan specific learning outcomes through the use of scenarios, as opposed to
unplanned consultations in real clinical settings, depending on the patients who come to the appointment. The ability to stop the consultation during the training stages if the patient or students are tired. Students can re-consult to try other strategies. Students can get feedback from the JV, group members, and the coach. Students can practice complex consultations without the risk of harming real patients. The scenarios can be adapted to the learner's needs and abilities. The situation of the training room is close to a real doctor's office (ward) with the necessary set of medical devices.
References
Даулетова М.Д., Төлепбергенова Б.А. Оқыту үрдісінде кіші топтарды қолдану // Қазақстанның ғылымы мен өмірі. – 2018. – №2/2 (56). – Б. 184–186. / Dauletova M.D., Tolepbergenova B.A. Oqytu urdіsіnde kіshі toptardy qoldanu [Using subgroups in the learning process] // Qazaqstannyn gylymy men omіrі. – 2018. – №2/2 (56). – B. 184–186. [in Kazakh] 2. Дощанов Д.Х. Использование стандартизированных пациентов в процессе интерактивного обучения студентов-медиков // Вестник КазНМУ. – 2014. – №3 (2). – С. 45–46. / Doshhanov D.H. Ispolzovanie standartizirovannyh pacientov v processe interaktivnogo obuchenija studentov-medikov [The use of standardized patients in the process of interactive teaching of medical students] // Vestnik KazNMU. – 2014. – №3 (2). – S. 45–46. [in Russian] 3. Щелокова Ю.В. и др. Элементы технологии «стандартизированный пациент», реализуемые на дисциплине «Общая хирургия». Научное обозрение // Педагогические науки. – 2017. – №6 (1). – С. 172–182. / Shhelokova Ju.V. i dr. Elementy tehnologii «standartizirovannyi pacient», realizuemye na discipline «Obshhaia hirurgiia». Nauchnoe obozrenie [Elements of the «standardized patient» technology implemented in the discipline «General Surgery». Scientific review] // Pedagogicheskie nauki. – 2017. – №6 (1). – S. 172–182. [in Russian] 4. Гринберг М.П., Архипов А.Н. и др. Коммуникативная компетентность врача. Симуляционное обучение. Методика «стандартизированный пациент». – Москва: РОСОМЕД: ГЭОТАР-Медиа: Литтерра, 2015. – С. 172–174. / Grinberg M.P., Arhipov A.N. i dr. Kommunikativnaia kompetentnost vracha. Simuliacionnoe obuchenie. Metodika «standartizirovannyi pacient» [The communicative competence of the doctor. Simulation training. The «standardized patient» technique]. – Moskva: ROSOMED: GJeOTAR-Media: Litterra, 2015. – S. 172–174. [in Russian] 5. Bosek M.S., Li S. and Hicks F.D. Working with standardized patients: a primer. // Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh., vol. 4, p. Article 16, 2007, doi: 10.2202/1548-923X.1437. 6. Verborg S., Cartier I., Berton J., and Granry J.-C. Medical consultation simulations and the question of the actors - simulated or standardized patients // Bull. Acad. Natl. Med., vol. 199, no. 7, pp. 1165–1172, Oct. 2015. 7. Hanson M. et al. Adolescent standardized patients: method of selection and assessment of benefits and risks // Teach. Learn. Med., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 104–113, 2002, doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1402_07. 8. Dietrich E. et al. Benefits of simulation using standardized patients for training dermatology residents in breaking bad news // Ann. Dermatol. Venereol., p. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.annder.2020.11.003. 9. Sweeney R., Mcnaughten B., Thompson A., Storey L., Murphy P. and Bourke T. ACTup: Advanced communication training simulation enhanced by actors trained in the Stanislavski system // BMJ Simul. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 35–37, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000553. 10. Albert D.V.F., Ream M., Verbeck N., Lash T. and Weisleder P. An Objective Structured Clinical Examination of Communication Skills for Child Neurology Residents // Pediatr. Neurol., vol. 114, pp. 68–74, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2020.09.004. 11. Cannity K.M. et al. Acceptability and efficacy of a communication skills training for nursing students: Building empathy and discussing complex situations // Nurse Educ. Pract., vol. 50, p. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102928. 12. Pezel T. et al. Simulation-based training in cardiology: State-of-the-art review from the French Commission of Simulation Teaching (Commission d’enseignement par simulation–COMSI) of the French Society of Cardiology // Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis., p. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2020.10.004. 13. Brunner S., Kröplin J., Meyer H.J., Schmitz‑Rixen T. and Fritz T. Use of surgical simulators in further education – A nationwide analysis in Germany // Chirurg, p. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s00104-020-01332-2. 14. Rucker J., Steele S., Zumwalt J. and Bray N. Utilizing Zoom Breakout Rooms to Expose Preclerkship Medical Students to TeleMedicine Encounters // Med. Sci. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1359–1360, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01113-w. 15. Lee Y.H., Lin S.C., Wang P.Y. and Lin M.H. Objective structural clinical examination for evaluating learning efficacy of Cultural Competence Cultivation Programme for nurses // BMC Nurs., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 2021, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12912-020-00500-3.
Howard V.M., Barber J. and Kardong-Edgren S. Corporate leadership training: Value added for your simulation center // Journal of Professional Nursing. vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 538–542, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.08.001.
Dominguez-Colman L. et al. Teaching Psychiatric Emergencies Using Simulation: an Experience During the Boot Camp // Med. Sci. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1481–1486, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01095-9.
Ávila Juárez S.A., García Barrón A.M. and Morales López S. Standardised patient simulation and low fidelity simulators (PESiBaF) as a first approach to a patient in first year students of the medicine degree // Educ. Medica, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 364–369, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2018.10.011.
Schlottmann F., Tolleson-Rinehart S., Kibbe M.R. and Patti M.G. Status of Simulation-Based Training in Departments of Surgery in the United States // J. Surg. Res., vol. 255, pp. 158–163, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.05.041.
Bullard M.J., Fox S.M., Heffner A.C., Bullard C.L. and Wares C.M. Unifying Resident Education: 12 Interdisciplinary Critical Care Simulation Scenarios // MedEdPORTAL J. Teach. Learn. Resour., vol. 16, p. 11009, 2020, doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11009.
Kitay B., Martin A., Chilton J., Amsalem D., Duvivier R. and Goldenberg M. Electroconvulsive Therapy: a Video-Based Educational Resource Using Standardized Patients // Acad. Psychiatry, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 531–537, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40596-020-01292-z.
Khadivzadeh T., Ardaghi Sefat Seighalani M., Mirzaii K. and Mazloum S.R. The Effect of Interactive Educational Workshops with or without Standardized Patients on the Clinical Skills of Midwifery Students in Providing Sexual Health Counseling // Simul. Healthc., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 234–242, 2020, doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000439.
Vallee A., Blacher J., Cariou A. and Sorbets E. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis // J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 22, no. 8, p. 2021, 2020, doi: 10.2196/16504.
Hsu Y.D. et al. Is it an impact factor for standardized patients with actor background to perform in the taiwan high-stake objective structured clinical examination? // J. Med. Sci., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 167–174, 2020, doi: 10.4103/jmedsci.jmedsci 203 19.
Whittle A., Bourne S., Segal S. and Serwint J.R. Teaching Death Disclosure: A Mixed-Method Comparison of Resident Self-Assessment and Standardized Patient Assessment // Acad. Pediatr., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 703–711, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.02.016.
Hitchcock L.I., Shorten A., Bosworth P., Galin S., Edmonds T. and Harada C. Using a standardized patient model for interprofessional team training in social work // Adv. Soc. Work, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 355–370, 2020, doi: 10.18060/23664.
Navarrete S.B., Salvo C.A., Reyes D.C. and González L.P. Structured clinical examinations with simulated patients during internal medicine clerkship // Rev. Med. Chil., vol. 148, no. 6, pp. 810–817, 2020, doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872020000600810.
Geoffroy P.A. et al. Standardized patients or conventional lecture for teaching communication skills to undergraduate medical students: A randomized controlled study // Psychiatry Investig., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 299–310, 2020, doi: 10.30773/pi.2019.0258.
Park K.Y., Park H.K., Hwang H.S., Yoo S.H., Ryu J.S. and Kim J.H. Improved detection of patient centeredness in objective structured clinical examinations through authentic scenario design // Patient Educ. Couns., p. 2021, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.016.
Diaczok B.J. et al. Comparison of Resident Self-Evaluation to Standardized Patient Evaluators in a Multi-Institutional Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Objectively Measuring Residents’ Communication and Counseling Skills // Simul. Healthc., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 69–74, 2020, doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000404.
Nikendei C. et al. Intervention training using peer role-play and standardised patients in psychodynamic psychotherapy trainees // Couns. Psychother. Res., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 508–522, 2019, doi: 10.1002/capr.12232.
Valentine D., Kurzweil A., Zabar S. and Lewis A. Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCE) are a feasible method of teaching how to discuss a nonepileptic seizure diagnosis // Epilepsy Behav., vol. 100, p. 2021, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106526.
Kolanczyk D.M., Borchert J.S. and Lempicki K.A. Focus group describing simulation-based learning for cardiovascular topics in US colleges and schools of pharmacy // Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1144–1151, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.07.005.
Ohmer M. et al. Clinical Reasoning in the Ward Setting: A Rapid Response Scenario for Residents and Attendings // MedEdPORTAL J. Teach. Learn. Resour., vol. 15, p. 10834, 2019, doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10834.
Movsisyan N.K., Petrosyan V., Abelyan G., Sochor O., Baghdasaryan S. and Etter J.F. Learning to assist smokers through encounters with standardized patients: An innovative training for physicians in an Eastern European country // PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 2021, 2019, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222813.
Rowland P., Anderson M., Kumagai A.K., McMillan S., Sandhu V.K. and Langlois S. Patient involvement in health professionals’ education: a meta-narrative review // Adv. Heal. Sci. Educ., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 595–617, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9857-7.
Kononowicz A.A. et al. Virtual patient simulations in health professions education: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration // J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 21, no. 7, p. 2021, 2019, doi: 10.2196/14676.
