Student self-reported communication skills, knowledge and confidence across standardised patient, virtual and traditional clinical learning environments

Michelle Quail, Shelley B Brundage, Josh Spitalnick, Peter J Allen, Janet Beilby, Michelle Quail, Shelley B Brundage, Josh Spitalnick, Peter J Allen, Janet Beilby

Abstract

Background: Advanced communication skills are vital for allied health professionals, yet students often have limited opportunities in which to develop them. The option of increasing clinical placement hours is unsustainable in a climate of constrained budgets, limited placement availability and increasing student numbers. Consequently, many educators are considering the potentials of alternative training methods, such as simulation. Simulations provide safe, repeatable and standardised learning environments in which students can practice a variety of clinical skills. This study investigated students' self-rated communication skill, knowledge, confidence and empathy across simulated and traditional learning environments.

Method: Undergraduate speech pathology students were randomly allocated to one of three communication partners with whom they engaged conversationally for up to 30 min: a patient in a nursing home (n = 21); an elderly trained patient actor (n = 22); or a virtual patient (n = 19). One week prior to, and again following the conversational interaction, participants completed measures of self-reported communication skill, knowledge and confidence (developed by the authors based on the Four Habit Coding Scheme), as well as the Jefferson Scale of Empathy - Health Professionals (student version).

Results: All three groups reported significantly higher communication knowledge, skills and confidence post-placement (Median d = .58), while the degree of change did not vary as a function of group membership (Median η (2) < .01). In addition, only students interacting with a nursing home resident reported higher empathy after the placement. Students reported that conversing with the virtual patient was more challenging than conversing with a nursing home patient or actor, and students appeared to derive the same benefit from the experience.

Conclusions: Participants self-reported higher communication skill, knowledge and confidence, though not empathy, following a brief placement in a virtual, standardised or traditional learning environment. The self-reported increases were consistent across the three placement types. It is proposed that the findings from this study provide support for the integration of more sustainable, standardised, virtual patient-based placement models into allied health training programs for the training of communication skills.

References

    1. Forrest K, McKimm J, Edgar S. Essential Simulation in Clinical Education. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
    1. Hojat M, Vergare M, Maxwell K, Brainard G, Herrine S, Isenberg G et al. The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1182-91.
    1. Chen R. Moral imagination in simulation-based communication skills training. Nurs Ethics. 2011;18(1):102–11. doi: 10.1177/0969733010386163.
    1. Parry R. Are interventions to enhance communication performance in allied health professionals effective, and how should they be delivered? Direct and indirect evidence. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):186–95. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.029.
    1. King S, Carbonaro M, Greidanus E, Ansell D, Foisy-Doll C, Magus S. Dynamic and routine interprofessional simulations: expanding the use of simulation to enhance interprofessional competencies. J Allied Health. 2014;43:169–75.
    1. Johnson P, Wistow G, Schulz R, Hardy B. Interagency and interprofessional collaboration in community care: the interdependence of structures and values. J Interprof Care. 2003;17(1):70–83. doi: 10.1080/1356182021000044166.
    1. Colliver J, Swartz M, Robbs R, Cohen D. Relationship between clinical competence and interpersonal and communication skills in standardized-patient assessment. Acad Med. 1999;74(3):271–4. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199903000-00018.
    1. Theodoros D, Davidson B, Hill A. Integration of Simulated Learning Environments into Speech Pathology Clinical Education Curricula: Health Workforce Australia; 2010.
    1. Sheepway L, Lincoln M, McAllister S. Impact of placement type on the development of clinical competency in speech-language pathology students. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014;49(2):189–203. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12059.
    1. Hill A, Davidson B, Theodoros D. A review of standardized patients in clinical education: Implications for speech-language pathology programs. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;12(3):259–70. doi: 10.3109/17549500903082445.
    1. Finch E, Fleming J, Brown K, Lethlean J, Cameron A, McPhail S. The confidence of speech-language pathology students regarding communicating with people with aphasia. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(92). doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-92.
    1. Hill A, Davidson B, Theodoros D. Speech-language pathology students’ perceptions of a standardised patient clinic. J Allied Health. 2013a;42(2):84-91.
    1. Zavertnik JE, Huff TA, Munro CL. Innovative approach to teaching communication skills to nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49(2):65–71. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090918-06.
    1. Poore JA, Cullen DL, Schaar GL. Simulation-based interprofessional education guided by Kolb’s experiential learning theory. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(5):e241–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2014.01.004.
    1. Kolb D. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
    1. Kneebone R, Black S, Yadollahi F, Darzi A. The human face of simulation: patient-focused simulation training. Acad Med. 2006;81(10):919-24.
    1. Hill A, Davidson B, Theodoros D. The performance of standardized patients in portraying clinical scenarios in speech-language therapy. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013b;48(6):613-24. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12034.
    1. Jia D, Bhatti A, Nahavandi S. Computer-simulated environment for training : challenge of efficacy evaluation. SimTecT 2008 : Simulation - Maximising Organisational Benefits Conference Proceedings. Melbourne, Victoria: Simulation Industry Association of Australia; 2008.
    1. Rogers L. Developing simulations in multi-user virtual environments to enhance healthcare education. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):608–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01057.x.
    1. Caplan W, Myrick F, Smitten J, Kelly W. What a tangled web we weave: How technology is reshaping pedagogy. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(8):1172–4. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.005.
    1. Sweigart L, Burden M, Carlton KH, Fillwalk J. Virtual simulations across curriculum prepare nursing students for patient interviews. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(3):e139–e45. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2013.10.003.
    1. Newby D, Jin J, Summons P, Athauda R, Park M, Schneider J, et al. Development of a computer-generated digital patient for teaching and assessment in pharmacy. 2011.
    1. Lambert N, Watkins L. Meet Mohammed: using simulation and technology to support learning. J Ment Health Train Educ Pract. 2013;8(2):66–75. doi: 10.1108/JMHTEP-03-2012-0001.
    1. Consorti F, Mancuso R, Nocioni M, Piccolo A. Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Comput Educ. 2012;59(3):1001–8. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.017.
    1. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010;85(10):1589–602. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13.
    1. Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, Veloski J, Hojat M. Medical students’ self-reported empathy and simulated patients’ assessments of student empathy: an analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):984–8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182224f1f.
    1. Bateman J, Allen M, Kidd J, Parsons N, Davies D. Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience: a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study. Med Educ. 2012;12(62). doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-62.
    1. Courteille, Josephson A, Larsson L. Interpersonal behaviors and socioemotional interaction of medical students in a virtual clinical encounter. Med Educ. 2014;14(64). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-64.
    1. Tiffany J, Hoglund BA. Teaching/learning in second life: perspectives of future nurse-educators. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(1):e19–e24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2013.06.006.
    1. Williams B, Brown T, Scholes R, French J, Archer F. Can interdisciplinary clinical DVD simulations transform clinical fieldwork education for paramedic, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and nursing students? J Allied Health. 2010;39(1):3-10.
    1. Parker RA, McNeill J, Howard J. Comparing pediatric simulation and traditional clinical experience: student perceptions, learning outcomes, and lessons for faculty. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(3):188–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2015.01.002.
    1. Turner MK, Simon SR, Facemyer KC, Newhall LM, Veach TL. Web-based learning versus standardized patients for teaching clinical diagnosis: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18(3):208–14. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1803_4.
    1. Benadom EM, Potter NL. The use of simulation in training graduate students to perform transnasal endoscopy. Dysphagia. 2011;26(4):352–60. doi: 10.1007/s00455-010-9316-y.
    1. Zraick R, Allen R, Johnson S. The use of standardized patients to teach and test interpersonal and communication skills with students in speech-language pathology. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8:237–48. doi: 10.1023/A:1026015430376.
    1. Deladisma A, Cohen M, Stevens A, Wagner P, Lok B, Bernard T, et al. Do medical students respond empathetically to a virtual patient? Am J Surg. 2007;193:756–60. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.01.021.
    1. Kononowicz AA, Zary N, Edelbring S, Corral J, Hege I. Virtual patients--what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:11. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0296-3.
    1. Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca T, Cohen M, Gonnella J, Erdmann J, et al. The Jefferson scale of physician empathy: development and preliminary psychometric data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61(2):349–65. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971158.
    1. Fossli Jensen B, Gulbrandsen P, Benth JS, Dahl FA, Krupat E, Finset A. Interrater reliability for the Four Habits Coding Scheme as part of a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(3):405–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.032.
    1. Krupat E, Frankel R, Stein T, Irish J. The Four Habits Coding Scheme: validation of an instrument to assess clinicians’ communication behavior. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62(1):38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.04.015.
    1. Fields SK, Mahan P, Tillman P, Harris J, Maxwell K, Hojat M. Measuring empathy in healthcare profession students using the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: health provider--student version. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(4):287–93. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2011.566648.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Foronda C, Gattamorta K, Snowden K, Bauman EB. Use of virtual clinical simulation to improve communication skills of baccalaureate nursing students: a pilot study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(6):e53–7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.10.007.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Alfes CM. Evaluating the use of simulation with beginning nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 2011;50(2):89–93. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20101230-03.
    1. Laschinger S, Medves J, Pulling C, McGraw R, Waytuck B, Harrison M et al. Effectiveness of simulation on health profession students’ knowledge, skills, confidence and satisfaction. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008;6. doi:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2008.00108.x.
    1. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.
    1. Khalaila R. Simulation in nursing education: an evaluation of students’ outcomes at their first clinical practice combined with simulations. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(2):252–8. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.08.015.
    1. Bambini D, Washburn J, Perkinds R. Outcomes of Clinical Simulation for Novice Nursing Students: Communication, Confidence, Clinical Judgement. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2009;30(2):79-82.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit