Literature DB >> 26002043

The Benefits and Risks of Being a Standardized Patient: A Narrative Review of the Literature.

Joseph Plaksin1, Joseph Nicholson2, Sarita Kundrod1, Sondra Zabar1, Adina Kalet1, Lisa Altshuler3.   

Abstract

Standardized patients (SPs) are a widely used, valid, and reliable means of teaching and evaluating healthcare providers (HCPs) across all levels of training and across multiple domains of both clinical and communication skills. Most research on SP programs focuses on outcomes pertinent to the learners (i.e., HCPs) rather than how this experience affects the SPs themselves. This review seeks to summarize the current literature on the risks and benefits of being an SP. We reviewed the literature on the effects that simulation has on adults, children/adolescents, and medical professionals who serve as SPs, in addition to real patients (RPs) who are involved in teaching by sharing their medical histories and experiences. To collect the literature, we conducted two separate systematic searches: one for SPs and one for RPs. Following the searches, we applied standardized eligibility criteria to narrow the literature down to articles within the scope of this review. A total of 67 studies were included that focused on the outcomes of SPs or RPs. The benefits for those portraying SP roles include improved health knowledge and attitudes, relationships with their HCPs, and changed health behaviors. Negative effects of being an SP include anxiety, exhaustion/fatigue, and physical discomfort immediately following a simulation, but the literature to date appears to indicate that there are no long-lasting effects. These findings are consistent across age groups and the type of role being simulated. They are also supported by studies of RPs who are involved in medical education. Overall, the benefits of being an SP appear to outweigh the known risks. However, there are significant limitations in the current literature, and additional studies are needed to better characterize the SP experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26002043     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0127-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  80 in total

1.  Recruiting and following adolescent standardized patients.

Authors:  K Blake; S Greaven
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  What health science students learn from playing a standardized patient in an ethics course.

Authors:  Amy Haddad
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Checklist content on a standardized patient assessment: an ex post facto review.

Authors:  John R Boulet; Marta van Zanten; André de Champlain; Richard E Hawkins; Steven J Peitzman
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2006-07-27       Impact factor: 3.853

4.  Health care perceptions of the standardized patient.

Authors:  N J Rubin; E B Philp
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.251

5.  The simulation game: an analysis of interactions between students and simulated patients.

Authors:  Anne de la Croix; John Skelton
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  Meeting the needs of simulated patients and caring for the person behind them?

Authors:  John Spencer; Jill Dales
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 6.251

7.  Does mental illness stigma contribute to adolescent standardized patients' discomfort with simulations of mental illness and adverse psychosocial experiences?

Authors:  Mark D Hanson; Samantha Johnson; Anne Niec; Anna Marie Pietrantonio; Bradley High; Harriet MacMillan; Kevin W Eva
Journal:  Acad Psychiatry       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr

8.  Performance-related stress symptoms in simulated patients.

Authors:  Lonneke Bokken; Jan van Dalen; Jan-Joost Rethans
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.251

Review 9.  Active patient involvement in the education of health professionals.

Authors:  Angela Towle; Lesley Bainbridge; William Godolphin; Arlene Katz; Cathy Kline; Beth Lown; Ioana Madularu; Patricia Solomon; Jill Thistlethwaite
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.251

Review 10.  Feedback by simulated patients in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Lonneke Bokken; Tim Linssen; Albert Scherpbier; Cees van der Vleuten; Jan-Joost Rethans
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 6.251

View more
  11 in total

1.  Nothing about me without me: a scoping review of how illness experiences inform simulated participants' encounters in health profession education.

Authors:  Linda Ní Chianáin; Richard Fallis; Jenny Johnston; Nancy McNaughton; Gerard Gormley
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2021-06-17

2.  Engaging young people as simulated patients: a qualitative description of health professional educators' perspectives.

Authors:  Andree Gamble; Margaret Bearman; Debra Nestel
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2021-02-08

3.  'It's the ultimate observer role…you're feeling and seeing what's happening to you': students' experiences of peer simulation.

Authors:  Shane A Pritchard; Narelle Dalwood; Jennifer L Keating; Debra Nestel; Maxine Te; Felicity Blackstock
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2020-10-29

4.  Older people's views and experiences of engagement in standardised patient simulation.

Authors:  Juliana Thompson; Sue Tiplady; Anne Hutchinson; Glenda Cook; Barbara Harrington
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2017-10-03

5.  Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Model for Continuous Quality Improvement of an Established Simulated Patient Program.

Authors:  Sarah E Vordenberg; Michael A Smith; Heidi L Diez; Tami L Remington; Jolene R Bostwick
Journal:  Innov Pharm       Date:  2018-08-20

6.  Working as simulated patient has effects on real patient life - Preliminary insights from a qualitative study.

Authors:  Anne Simmenroth-Nayda; Gabriella Marx; Thorsten Lorkowski; Wolfgang Himmel
Journal:  GMS J Med Educ       Date:  2016-05-17

7.  Transforming the Patient Role to Achieve Better Outcomes Through a Patient Empowerment Program: A Randomized Wait-List Control Trial Protocol.

Authors:  Lisa Altshuler; Joseph Plaksin; Sondra Zabar; Andrew Wallach; Chester Sawicki; Sarita Kundrod; Adina Kalet
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-04-21

8.  "Please let me know when I do not realize it myself": a qualitative analysis of senior simulated patients' experiences.

Authors:  Claudia Schelgel; Cathy M Smith
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2019-07-29

9.  A Virtual Counseling Application Using Artificial Intelligence for Communication Skills Training in Nursing Education: Development Study.

Authors:  Shefaly Shorey; Emily Ang; John Yap; Esperanza Debby Ng; Siew Tiang Lau; Chee Kong Chui
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Using the Higher Learning Commission's Assessment Culture Matrix to Support Continuous Quality Improvement of a Simulated Patient Program.

Authors:  Molly Genereaux; Michelle Nguyen; Jolene R Bostwick; Sarah E Vordenberg
Journal:  Innov Pharm       Date:  2021-04-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.