Fifteen simulated patient working formats to use in communication skills training: Report of a survey.

OBJECTIVE: Simulated and standardized patients (SPs) are increasingly being used in communication skills training for healthcare professionals' education. Despite this broad use of SPs, there is no recent literature with an overview on SP working formats being used. We ran a study to fill this gap. METHODS: First, a survey on formats on the use of SPs in various curricula for education of healthcare professionals in Belgium and The Netherlands was run by members of the Dutch Association of Medical Education Special Interest Group on Simulated and Standardized patients (SIG-NL/B). Then the SIG-NL/B organized a national workshop where professionals working with or interested in SPs were invited to come forward with SP working formats they used. They were also asked to provide relevant details about the use. Finally, the outcomes of these two phases were combined. RESULTS: Fifteen SP working formats were found. Six of them were described before. The details of all formats are listed and discussed. CONCLUSION: We categorised 15 SP working formats. The choice to use a particular format is mainly based on the learning objectives of the session involved and the expertise at hand.

How simulated patients contribute to student learning in an authentic way, an interview study.

INTRODUCTION: Simulated patients (SPs) play an instrumental role in teaching communication skills and enhancing learning outcomes. Prior research mostly focused on the SP's contribution to students' learning outcomes by providing feedback afterwards. A detailed understanding of the contribution of the SP during SP-student encounters is currently lacking although the majority of the interaction between SPs and students occurs during the SP-student encounter. Therefore, this study focuses on how SPs see their contribution to meaningful student learning experiences during SP-student encounters. METHODS: We interviewed fifteen simulated patients from one institution. We explored their perspectives on meaningful learning experiences during SP-student encounters through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: SPs view their contribution to meaningful student learning during SP-student encounters from two perspectives. A collective perspective as a member of the community of SPs and an individual perspective. From the collective perspective, SPs believe that the fact that students deal with multiple varied SP-student encounters over time is of value for meaningful learning. From the individual perspective, we noticed that SPs think, act, and react from three different positions. First, as the patient in the role description, second, as a teaching aid and third, as an individual with personal experiences, beliefs, and values. SPs mentioned that the ratio between these different positions can vary within and between encounters. CONCLUSIONS: According to SPs, we should value the variation between SPs, thereby creating meaningful variation in authentic interactions in SP-student encounters. SPs should be allowed to act and react from different positions during SP-student encounters, including their role description, as teaching aid, and based on their own experiences. In this way, SP-student encounters are optimized to contribute to meaningful student learning through authenticity.

The contribution of simulated patients to meaningful student learning.

INTRODUCTION: Communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is widely accepted as a valuable and effective means of teaching communication skills. However, it is unclear which elements within SP-student encounters make these learning experiences meaningful. This study focuses on the SP's role during meaningful learning of the student by giving an in-depth understanding of the contribution of the SP from a student perspective. METHODS: Fifteen bachelor Technical Medicine students were interviewed. Technical medicine students become technical physicians who optimize individual patient care through the use of personalized technology. Their perceptions of meaningful learning experiences during SP-student encounters were explored through in-depth, semi-structured interviews, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified that described what students considered to be important for meaningful learning experiences. First, SPs provide implicit feedback-in-action. Through this, students received an impression of their communication during the encounter. Implicit feedback-in-action was perceived as an authentic reaction of the SPs. Second, implicit feedback-in-action could lead to a process of reflection-in-action, meaning that students reflect on their own actions during the consultation. Third, interactions with SPs contributed to students' identity development, enabling them to know themselves on a professional and personal level. DISCUSSION: During SP encounters, students learn more than just communication skills; the interaction with SPs contributes to their professional and personal identity development. Primarily, the authentic response of an SP during the interaction provides students an understanding of how well they communicate. This raises issues whether standardizing SPs might limit opportunities for meaningful learning.