J A Gordon1, W M Wilkerson, D W Shaffer, E G Armstrong. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, CLN 115, Boston, MA 02114-2696, USA. jgordon3@partners.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the responses of medical students and educators to high-fidelity patient simulation, a new technology allowing "practice without risk." METHOD: Pilot groups of students (n = 27) and educators (n = 33) were exposed to a simulator session, then surveyed with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Open-ended comments were transcribed and coded. They were analyzed for recurring themes and tested for inter-rater agreement. An independent focus group subsequently performed higher-level thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 85% of the students rated the session excellent and 85% of the educators rated it excellent or very good. Over 80% of both groups thought that simulator-based training should be required for all medical students. Analytic categories derived from written comments were: Overall Assessment (i.e., "generally good experience"); Process Descriptors (i.e., "very realistic"); Teaching Utility (i.e., "broad educational tool"); Pedagogic Efficacy (i.e., "promotes critical thinking"); and Goals for Future Use (i.e., "more practice sessions"). Thirty percent of students and 38% of educators were impressed by the realism of the simulator, and they (37% and 25%, respectively) identified the ability to "practice" medicine as the primary advantage of simulation. The focus group rated cost as the major current disadvantage (66%). CONCLUSIONS: Students' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation were very positive. The ability to practice without risk must be weighed against the cost of this new technology.
PURPOSE: To understand the responses of medical students and educators to high-fidelity patient simulation, a new technology allowing "practice without risk." METHOD: Pilot groups of students (n = 27) and educators (n = 33) were exposed to a simulator session, then surveyed with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Open-ended comments were transcribed and coded. They were analyzed for recurring themes and tested for inter-rater agreement. An independent focus group subsequently performed higher-level thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 85% of the students rated the session excellent and 85% of the educators rated it excellent or very good. Over 80% of both groups thought that simulator-based training should be required for all medical students. Analytic categories derived from written comments were: Overall Assessment (i.e., "generally good experience"); Process Descriptors (i.e., "very realistic"); Teaching Utility (i.e., "broad educational tool"); Pedagogic Efficacy (i.e., "promotes critical thinking"); and Goals for Future Use (i.e., "more practice sessions"). Thirty percent of students and 38% of educators were impressed by the realism of the simulator, and they (37% and 25%, respectively) identified the ability to "practice" medicine as the primary advantage of simulation. The focus group rated cost as the major current disadvantage (66%). CONCLUSIONS: Students' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation were very positive. The ability to practice without risk must be weighed against the cost of this new technology.
Authors: A Timmermann; C Eich; S G Russo; J Barwing; A Hirn; H Rode; J F Heuer; D Heise; E Nickel; A Klockgether-Radke; B M Graf Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.041