| Literature DB >> 29871699 |
Samira Jeimy1, Jenny Yujing Wang2, Lisa Richardson2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The virtual patient (VP) is a computer program that simulates real-life clinical scenarios and allows learners to make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in a safe environment. Although many VP cases are available, few focus on junior trainees as their target audience. In addition, there is wide variability in trainees' clinical rotation experiences, based on local practice and referral patterns, duty hour restrictions, and competing educational requirements. In order to standardize clinical exposure and improve trainees' knowledge and perceived preparedness to manage core internal medicine cases, we developed a pool of VP cases to simulate common internal medicine presentations. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of one of our VP cases among medical trainees at University of Toronto. We also evaluated the role of VP cases in integrated teaching of non-medical expert competencies.Entities:
Keywords: CanMEDS; Internal medicine; Medical curriculum; Medical education; Virtual patients
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29871699 PMCID: PMC5989465 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3463-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Participant characteristics (% of participants in each intervention group)
| VP Case (n = 23) | PowerPoint (n = 29) | Chi square | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of training | 0.799 | ||
| 1–2 years medical student | 13 | 17 | |
| 3–4 years medical student | 61 | 52 | |
| Resident | 26 | 31 | |
| Time from last IM rotation | 0.965 | ||
| No previous IM rotation | 26 | 24 | |
| > 6 months | 13 | 10 | |
| 3–6 months | 13 | 17 | |
| < 3 months | 26 | 21 | |
| Currently in IM rotation | 22 | 28 | |
| Initial objectives | N/A | ||
| Review knowledge | 87 | 90 | |
| Acquire new medical expert knowledge | 65 | 52 | |
| Improve non-medical expert competency | 17 | 10 | |
| Application of knowledge | 52 | 66 | |
| Recruited for research | 4 | 0 | |
| Previous exposure to virtual patients | 0.313 | ||
| None | 87 | 76 | |
| Any virtual patient cases | 13 | 24 | |
| Self evaluation of ability to: | |||
| Diagnose UGIB | 0.064 | ||
| Excellent | 0 | 3 | |
| Very good | 43 | 28 | |
| Satisfactory | 35 | 59 | |
| Unremarkable | 4 | 10 | |
| Poor | 17 | 0 | |
| Manage UGIB | 0.394 | ||
| Excellent | 0 | 3 | |
| Very good | 22 | 14 | |
| Satisfactory | 48 | 66 | |
| Unremarkable | 9 | 10 | |
| Poor | 22 | 7 | |
| Handover | 0.340 | ||
| Excellent | 4 | 3 | |
| Very good | 26 | 14 | |
| Satisfactory | 48 | 69 | |
| Unremarkable | 13 | 14 | |
| Poor | 9 | 0 | |
| Write admission orders | 0.284 | ||
| Excellent | 4 | 3 | |
| Good | 26 | 10 | |
| Satisfactory | 43 | 55 | |
| Unremarkable | 13 | 28 | |
| Poor | 13 | 3 | |
| OGD consent | 0.518 | ||
| Excellent | 0 | 0 | |
| Very good | 13 | 10 | |
| Satisfactory | 22 | 41 | |
| Unremarkable | 43 | 31 | |
| Poor | 22 | 17 | |
VP virtual patient, UGIB upper gastrointestinal bleed, OGD oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy
Comparing objective assessment scores (median [IQR1, IQR3])
| Question topics | VP case (n = 23) | PowerPoint (n = 29) | Mann–Whitney U test P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sign over | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.979 |
| Hypovolemia signs | 1.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.284 |
| Most important step in management | 0.00 (0.00–0.50) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.650 |
| Risk scores | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) | 0.832 |
| Presentation of UGIB | 1.00 (0.80–1.00) | 0.80 (0.60–1.00) | 0.274 |
| Complications of OGD | 0.75 (0.75–1.00) | 0.75 (0.50–1.00) | 0.210 |
| Bad exam manoeuvre | 1.00 (0.00–1.00) | 1.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.335 |
| High risk OGD lesion | 0.75 (0.50–1.00) | 0.75 (0.50–1.00) | 0.909 |
| Post OGD monitoring | 1.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.00) | 0.073 |
VP virtual patient, UGIB upper gastrointestinal bleed, OGD oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy
Focus group categories
| Categories | Subcategories |
|---|---|
| Residents want practical resources beyond traditional curriculum | Want concise, evidence-based, clinically relevant information |
| Place to practice skills without consequences | |
| Medical students at different levels have different learning needs | Preclinical students are focused on tips/skills |
| Preclinical students want to practice experience of real world before clerkship | |
| Clerks are focused on knowledge/medical expert content | |
| Clerks want to practice application of knowledge | |
| Difficult to meet needs with any one type of learning resource | |
| Appreciated elements of IMCE cases | High quality, comprehensive |
| Realistic | |
| Practical delivery of clinically relevant details | |
| Provides an approach | |
| Evidence-based | |
| Interactive | |
| Optional curriculum resource | |
| Suggestions for improvement | Cases are too long, with too many details e.g. scoring systems |
| Link to multimedia (videos, images, Apps) | |
| Include extra information like scoring systems as optional links | |
| Increase interactivity | |
| General challenges in the current use of CanMEDS in medical education | The way CanMEDS breaks down the concept of the physician is reductionist, not organic |
| Portfolio—allows debriefing on challenging cases, but rigid format | |
| CanMEDS is useful for educators to plan curriculum but may be inherently challenging to teach | |
| VP cases and CanMEDS | VP cases may be a useful resource to integrate CanMEDS roles |
| Simulations cannot replace real world experience of patient care | Some skills are still better learned via practice and experience |