Darakhshan Jabeen1. 1. Department of Medical Staff Affairs, Shifa College of Medicine, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan. d_jabeen@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of simulated patients with real patients through undergraduate students' results of Mini-Cex encounters and their opinions. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed method (combined qualitative and quantitative). PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Shifa College of Medicine / Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, during the year 2010. METHODOLOGY: The study included all 94 students of 4th year MBBS at Shifa College of Medicine. Their communication skills in history taking and counselling were assessed using first real patients and then simulated patients. The quantitative data was gathered from results (scores obtained) of the two encounters and was analyzed using SPSS version 10. It was interpreted as mean and standard deviation, and independent sample T-test was used to statistically determine the difference between the two results. The qualitative data was obtained from student interviews. The two forms of data was collected and analyzed for triangulation contributing towards validation of the results and to have deeper insight into the relevant phenomena. RESULTS: The results of history taking with real patients and simulated patients showed no significant difference (p = 0.158). Likewise, results of counselling with real and simulated patients did not show a significant difference (p = 0.306). The results of student interviews showed that 92/94 students (97.9%) were in favour of using simulated patients for the assessment of communication skills. Sixty-one (64.9%) were of the view that there was no difference between real patients and simulated patients. Ninety-one students (96.8%) agreed that simulated patients provided motivation and 62 (66%) indicated that simulated patient encounter was not difficult. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate students were more in favour of using simulated patients encounters for evaluation of communication skills. There were no significant difference between students performance on real and simulated patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of simulated patients with real patients through undergraduate students' results of Mini-Cex encounters and their opinions. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed method (combined qualitative and quantitative). PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Shifa College of Medicine / Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, during the year 2010. METHODOLOGY: The study included all 94 students of 4th year MBBS at Shifa College of Medicine. Their communication skills in history taking and counselling were assessed using first real patients and then simulated patients. The quantitative data was gathered from results (scores obtained) of the two encounters and was analyzed using SPSS version 10. It was interpreted as mean and standard deviation, and independent sample T-test was used to statistically determine the difference between the two results. The qualitative data was obtained from student interviews. The two forms of data was collected and analyzed for triangulation contributing towards validation of the results and to have deeper insight into the relevant phenomena. RESULTS: The results of history taking with real patients and simulated patients showed no significant difference (p = 0.158). Likewise, results of counselling with real and simulated patients did not show a significant difference (p = 0.306). The results of student interviews showed that 92/94 students (97.9%) were in favour of using simulated patients for the assessment of communication skills. Sixty-one (64.9%) were of the view that there was no difference between real patients and simulated patients. Ninety-one students (96.8%) agreed that simulated patients provided motivation and 62 (66%) indicated that simulated patient encounter was not difficult. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate students were more in favour of using simulated patients encounters for evaluation of communication skills. There were no significant difference between students performance on real and simulated patients.