Manikins versus simulated patients in emergency medicine training: a comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: Every physician must be able to sufficiently master medical emergencies, especially in medical areas where emergencies occur frequently such as in the emergency room or emergency surgery. This contrasts with the observation that medical students and young residents often feel insufficiently prepared to handle medical emergencies. It is therefore necessary to train them in the treatment of emergency patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the influence of the assignment of manikin versus simulated patients during a training for undergraduate medical students on learning outcomes and the perceived realism. METHODS: The study had a prospective cross-over design and took place in a 3-day emergency medicine training for undergraduate medical students. Students completed three teaching units ('chest pain', 'impaired consciousness', 'dyspnea'), either with manikin or simulated patient. Using a questionnaire after each unit, overall impression, didactics, content, the quality of practical exercises, and the learning success were evaluated. The gained competences were measured in a 6-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at the end of training. RESULTS: 126 students participated. Students rated simulated patients as significantly more realistic than manikins regarding the possibility to carry out examination techniques and taking medical history. 54.92% of the students would prefer to train with simulated patients in the future. Regarding the gained competences for 'chest pain' and 'impaired consciousness', students who trained with a manikin scored less in the OSCE station than the simulated patients-group. CONCLUSION: Simulated patients are rated more realistic than manikins and seem to be superior to manikins regarding gained competence.

Effects and Consequences of Being an OSCE Examiner in Surgery-A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Even though objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is a well-investigated format for competency-based practical examination, only a few studies have explored the motivations of OSCE examiners and their opinions, both positive and negative, toward being an examiner. The aim of this study was to gain insights into the views of OSCE examiners using semi-structured interviews. DESIGN: Surgical OSCE examiners were queried at two medical faculties in Germany via semi-structured interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the techniques of structured qualitative content analysis. SETTING: This study was conducted at the medical faculties of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany and of the Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: All of the study participants were surgeons working at the university hospital of one of the faculties. RESULTS: A total of 29 examiners were queried until a saturation of content was achieved. A critical reflection of one's own teaching was described as a major benefit by most participants. Furthermore, they noted that the standards and competences examined during the OSCE boosted the detail of their teaching sessions in the wards. However, the examiners criticized missed operations due the examination and were not appreciated by superiors for being an examiner. Most of the examiners (22/29) preferred to be an examiner themselves rather than appointing student peer examiners. If they had appointed someone else, that would mean they would miss valuable experiences useful for their own teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Being an OSCE examiner confers several advantages, notably the reflection of one's own teaching, which was described as highly valuable by the examiners.