April R Christensen1, Carla L Spagnoletti2, Rene N Claxton3. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, and Associate Program Director for the Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship, Mayo Clinic. 2. Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Director of the Academic Clinician-Educator Scholars (ACES) Fellowship in General Internal Medicine and Director of the Master's and Certificate Programs in Medical Education, Institute for Clinical Research Education, University of Pittsburgh. 3. Associate Professor and Program Director of the Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Abstract
Introduction: Facilitated communication practice with simulated patients (SPs) is a highly effective form of communication training. Unfortunately, little guidance exists on writing SP cases. Methods: We created a curriculum composed of a case-development workbook and case-writing session with input from national communication educators. In November 2017, we implemented the curriculum in a Teaching Communication Skills course for medical educators. Educators divided into four groups to write cases. Primary outcome was the number of criteria that cases fulfilled. Secondary outcomes were SP evaluation and educator-reported confidence and satisfaction. Results: Seventeen medical educators (including 15 fellows) completed the curriculum. Four new cases were analyzed against 24 criteria and compared to eight cases written by educators following a previous curriculum. An SP evaluated ease of portrayal for all 12 cases on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). Educators completed precurriculum and postcurriculum surveys. Compared to the previous curriculum, cases based on the new curriculum incorporated 26% more case criteria (70% or 16.8 criteria/case vs. 96% or 23.0 criteria/case, p < .01). Ease-of-portrayal rating improved but did not differ statistically (mean: 2.8 vs. 4.5, p = .11). A moderate correlation was found between number of included case criteria and Likert-scale rating (r s = .61, p = .03). Pre- and postcurriculum, educators reported significant increases in confidence (mean: 1.9 vs. 4.0, p < .01) and high curricular satisfaction (mean: 4.8). Discussion: A case-development workbook and case-writing session increased the quality of newly developed SP cases as assessed by prespecified case criteria.
Introduction: Facilitated communication practice with simulated patients (SPs) is a highly effective form of communication training. Unfortunately, little guidance exists on writing SP cases. Methods: We created a curriculum composed of a case-development workbook and case-writing session with input from national communication educators. In November 2017, we implemented the curriculum in a Teaching Communication Skills course for medical educators. Educators divided into four groups to write cases. Primary outcome was the number of criteria that cases fulfilled. Secondary outcomes were SP evaluation and educator-reported confidence and satisfaction. Results: Seventeen medical educators (including 15 fellows) completed the curriculum. Four new cases were analyzed against 24 criteria and compared to eight cases written by educators following a previous curriculum. An SP evaluated ease of portrayal for all 12 cases on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). Educators completed precurriculum and postcurriculum surveys. Compared to the previous curriculum, cases based on the new curriculum incorporated 26% more case criteria (70% or 16.8 criteria/case vs. 96% or 23.0 criteria/case, p < .01). Ease-of-portrayal rating improved but did not differ statistically (mean: 2.8 vs. 4.5, p = .11). A moderate correlation was found between number of included case criteria and Likert-scale rating (r s = .61, p = .03). Pre- and postcurriculum, educators reported significant increases in confidence (mean: 1.9 vs. 4.0, p < .01) and high curricular satisfaction (mean: 4.8). Discussion: A case-development workbook and case-writing session increased the quality of newly developed SP cases as assessed by prespecified case criteria.
Authors: Josephine M Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; Amy Waters; Rebekah C Laidsaar-Powell; Angela O'Brien; Frances Boyle; Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; James A Tulsky; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Walter F Baile; Kelly A Fryer-Edwards; Stewart C Alexander; Gwyn E Barley; Ted A Gooley; James A Tulsky Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-03-12
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen L Lewis; Carrie A Bohnert; Wendy L Gammon; Henrike Hölzer; Lorraine Lyman; Cathy Smith; Tonya M Thompson; Amelia Wallace; Gayle Gliva-McConvey Journal: Adv Simul (Lond) Date: 2017-06-27