Literature DB >> 16720154

The use of virtual patients to teach medical students history taking and communication skills.

Amy Stevens1, Jonathan Hernandez, Kyle Johnsen, Robert Dickerson, Andrew Raij, Cyrus Harrison, Meredith DiPietro, Bryan Allen, Richard Ferdig, Sebastian Foti, Jonathan Jackson, Min Shin, Juan Cendan, Robert Watson, Margaret Duerson, Benjamin Lok, Marc Cohen, Peggy Wagner, D Scott Lind.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: At most institutions, medical students learn communication skills through the use of standardized patients (SPs), but SPs are time and resource expensive. Virtual patients (VPs) may offer several advantages over SPs, but little data exist regarding the use of VPs in teaching communication skills. Therefore, we report our initial efforts to create an interactive virtual clinical scenario of a patient with acute abdominal pain to teach medical students history-taking and communication skills.
METHODS: In the virtual scenario, a life-sized VP is projected on the wall of an examination room. Before the virtual encounter, the student reviews patient information on a handheld tablet personal computer, and they are directed to take a history and develop a differential diagnosis. The virtual system includes 2 networked personal computers (PCs), 1 data projector, 2 USB2 Web cameras to track the user's head and hand movement, a tablet PC, and a microphone. The VP is programmed with specific answers and gestures in response to questions asked by students. The VP responses to student questions were developed by reviewing videotapes of students' performances with real SPs. After obtaining informed consent, 20 students underwent voice recognition training followed by a videotaped VP encounter. Immediately after the virtual scenario, students completed a technology and SP questionnaire (Maastricht Simulated Patient Assessment).
RESULTS: All participants had prior experience with real SPs. Initially, the VP correctly recognized approximately 60% of the student's questions, and improving the script depth and variability of the VP responses enhanced most incorrect voice recognition. Student comments were favorable particularly related to feedback provided by the virtual instructor. The overall student rating of the virtual experience was 6.47 +/- 1.63 (1 = lowest, 10 = highest) for version 1.0 and 7.22 +/- 1.76 for version 2.0 (4 months later) reflecting enhanced voice recognition and other technological improvements. These overall ratings compare favorably to a 7.47 +/- 1.16 student rating for real SPs.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite current technological limitations, virtual clinical scenarios could provide students a controllable, secure, and safe learning environment with the opportunity for extensive repetitive practice with feedback without consequence to a real or SP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16720154     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  35 in total

1.  Promotion of self-directed learning using virtual patient cases.

Authors:  Neal Benedict; Kristine Schonder; James McGee
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  A virtual patient software program to improve pharmacy student learning in a comprehensive disease management course.

Authors:  Mark A Douglass; Jillian P Casale; J Andrew Skirvin; Margarita V DiVall
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 2.047

Review 3.  Employing immersive virtual environments for innovative experiments in health care communication.

Authors:  Susan Persky
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-01-12

4.  Preparing Physicians for the 21 Century: Targeting Communication Skills and the Promotion of Health Behavior Change.

Authors:  Kimberly Sibille; Anthony Greene; Joseph P Bush
Journal:  Ann Behav Sci Med Educ       Date:  2010

Review 5.  Virtual patients in pharmacy education.

Authors:  Monique O Jabbur-Lopes; Alessandra R Mesquita; Leila M A Silva; Abilio De Almeida Neto; Divaldo P Lyra
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Virtual humans versus standardized patients: which lead residents to more correct diagnoses?

Authors:  Adam L Wendling; Shivashankar Halan; Patrick Tighe; Linda Le; Tammy Euliano; Benjamin Lok
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Avatar-mediated home safety assessments: piloting a virtual objective structured clinical examination station.

Authors:  Allen D Andrade; Pedro Cifuentes; Marcelo C Oliveira; Ramanakumar Anam; Bernard A Roos; Jorge G Ruiz
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2011-12

8.  European pharmacy students' experience with virtual patient technology.

Authors:  Afonso Miguel Cavaco; Filipe Madeira
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 2.047

9.  "Breaking bad news": standardized patient intervention improves communication skills for hematology-oncology fellows and advanced practice nurses.

Authors:  Ahmed Eid; Michael Petty; Laura Hutchins; Reed Thompson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

10.  Integrating virtual patients into a self-care course.

Authors:  Katherine Kelly Orr
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2007-04-15       Impact factor: 2.047

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.