Are medical students being taught invasive skills using simulation?

INTRODUCTION: Basic invasive procedural skills are traditionally taught during clerkships. Using simulation to teach invasive skills provides students the opportunity to practice in a structured environment without risking patient safety. We surveyed incoming interns at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital to assess the prevalence of simulation training for invasive and semi-invasive procedural skills during medical school. METHODS: From 2008 to 2010, we surveyed 357 incoming interns at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. The questionnaire asked incoming interns if they received formal instruction or procedural training with or without a simulation component for 34 procedures during medical school. Interns indicated their number of attempts and successes for each procedure in clinical care. RESULTS: All 357 incoming interns completed the survey. Experience in 28 procedures is reported in this article. For all but three basic procedures, more than 75% of interns received formal didactic instruction. Only 3 advanced procedures were formally taught to most interns. The prevalence of simulation training for the basic and advanced procedures was 46% and 23%, respectively. For the basic procedures, the average number of attempts and successes was 6.5 (range, 0-13.9) and 6.2 (range, 0-13.4), respectively. For the advanced procedures, the average number of attempts and successes was 1.5 (range, 0-4.8) and 1.3 (range, 0-4.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although most medical students receive formal instruction in basic procedures, fewer receive formal instruction in advanced procedures. The use of simulation to complement this training occurs less often. Simulation training should be increased in undergraduate medical education and integrated into graduate medical education.

Evaluation of the use of patient-focused simulation for student assessment in a surgery clerkship.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of simulated patients in conjunction with anatomic and tissue task-training models to assess skills. METHODS: Faculty reviewed the objectives of the clerkship to identify skills to be acquired. Three cases were developed related to rectal examination, suturing, and inserting intravenous lines and nasogastric tubes. Student scores were based on their ability to gather data from simulated patients and perform procedures on simulation models. RESULTS: A total of 670 students were assessed between 2006 and 2009. Alpha reliability coefficients were .97 for Communication/Interpersonal Skills, .71 for Procedures, and .58 for Data Gathering. Students receiving low ratings from faculty in the clerkship had significantly (P < .001) lower simulation scores. There were significant (P < .001) relationships between scores and grades in other clerkships. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of simulated patients and simulation models yielded reliable scores for procedural and interpersonal skills, and evidence of validity related to clinical ratings.

Evaluation of the congruence between students' postencounter notes and standardized patients' checklists in a clinical skills examination.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Questions remain about the congruence between students' written notes and checklists as summaries of encounters. METHODS: Students examined standardized patients and summarized findings in postencounter notes. The patients completed checklists. A physician read the students' notes and completed parallel checklists to document the history and physical items performed. Rates of under- and overdocumentation were calculated. RESULTS: Students documented findings for 71% of items performed - an underdocumentation rate of 29%. Approximately 94% of their documented findings were consistent with what they had done. Their rate of overdocumentation was 6%, in which they documented findings inconsistent with the checklists. About half the students had no instances of overdocumentation. CONCLUSION: Students' rate of underdocumentation was comparable to experienced clinicians. Although their overdocumentation rate was low overall, it was high for a few students. Evaluation of the congruence between checklists and postencounter notes provides useful information and informs checklist development.