The Postoperative Pain Assessment Skills pilot trial.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Pain-related misbeliefs among health care professionals (HCPs) are common and contribute to ineffective postoperative pain assessment. While standardized patients (SPs) have been effectively used to improve HCPs' assessment skills, not all centres have SP programs. The present equivalence randomized controlled pilot trial examined the efficacy of an alternative simulation method - deteriorating patient-based simulation (DPS) - versus SPs for improving HCPs' pain knowledge and assessment skills. METHODS: Seventy-two HCPs were randomly assigned to a 3 h SP or DPS simulation intervention. Measures were recorded at baseline, immediate postintervention and two months postintervention. The primary outcome was HCPs' pain assessment performance as measured by the postoperative Pain Assessment Skills Tool (PAST). Secondary outcomes included HCPs knowledge of pain-related misbeliefs, and perceived satisfaction and quality of the simulation. These outcomes were measured by the Pain Beliefs Scale (PBS), the Satisfaction with Simulated Learning Scale (SSLS) and the Simulation Design Scale (SDS), respectively. Student's t tests were used to test for overall group differences in postintervention PAST, SSLS and SDS scores. One-way analysis of covariance tested for overall group differences in PBS scores. RESULTS: DPS and SP groups did not differ on post-test PAST, SSLS or SDS scores. Knowledge of pain-related misbeliefs was also similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that DPS is an effective simulation alternative for HCPs' education on postoperative pain assessment, with improvements in performance and knowledge comparable with SP-based simulation. An equivalence trial to examine the effectiveness of deteriorating patient-based simulation versus standardized patients is warranted.

Innovation and design of a web-based pain education interprofessional resource.

INTRODUCTION: The present article describes educational innovation processes and design of a web-based pain interprofessional resource for prelicensure health science students in universities across Canada. Operationalization of educational theory in design coupled with formative evaluation of design are discussed, along with strategies that support collaborative innovation. METHODS: Educational design was driven by content, theory and evaluation. Pain misbeliefs and teaching points along the continuum from acute to persistent pain were identified. Knowledge-building theory, situated learning, reflection and novel designs for cognitive scaffolding were then employed. Design research principles were incorporated to inform iterative and ongoing design. RESULTS: An authentic patient case was constructed, situated in interprofessional complex care to highlight learning objectives related to pre-operative, postoperative and treatment up to one year, for a surgical cancer patient. Pain mechanisms, assessment and management framed content creation. Knowledge building scaffolds were used, which included video simulations, embedded resources, concurrent feedback, practice-based reflective exercises and commentaries. Scaffolds were refined to specifically support knowledge translation. Illustrative commentaries were designed to explicate pain misbeliefs and best practices. Architecture of the resource was mapped; a multimedia, interactive prototype was created. This pain education resource was developed primarily for individual use, with extensions for interprofessional collective discourse. DISCUSSION: Translation of curricular content scripts into representation maps supported the collaborative design process by establishing a common visual language. The web-based prototype will be formatively and summatively evaluated to assess pedagogic design, knowledge-translation scaffolds, pain knowledge gains, relevance, feasibility and fidelity of this educational innovation.

Key challenges in simulated patient programs: an international comparative case study.

BACKGROUND: The literature on simulated or standardized patient (SP) methodology is expanding. However, at the level of the program, there are several gaps in the literature. We seek to fill this gap through documenting experiences from four programs in Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. We focused on challenges in SP methodology, faculty, organisational structure and quality assurance. METHODS: We used a multiple case study method with cross-case synthesis. Over eighteen months during a series of informal and formal interactions (focused meetings and conference presentations) we documented key characteristics of programs and drew on secondary document sources. RESULTS: Although programs shared challenges in SP methodology they also experienced differences. Key challenges common to programs included systematic quality assurance and the opportunity for research. There were differences in the terminology used to describe SPs, in their recruitment and training. Other differences reflected local conditions and demands in organisational structure, funding relationships with the host institution and national trends, especially in assessments. CONCLUSION: This international case study reveals similarities and differences in SP methodology. Programs were highly contextualised and have emerged in response to local, institutional, profession/discipline and national conditions. Broader trends in healthcare education have also influenced development. Each of the programs experienced challenges in the same themes but the nature of the challenges often varied widely.

A randomized trial of teaching bioethics to surgical residents.

BACKGROUND: Bioethics education has been recommended as a formal component of surgical residency training. The best method for teaching bioethics to residents is unclear. We compared the effectiveness of a standardized patient (SP)-based seminar to a traditional seminar format for teaching bioethics to surgical residents. METHODS: We randomized 31 first- and second-year surgical residents to either a SP-based seminar or a traditional seminar on informed consent. Immediately after the seminars, we evaluated resident performance in patient encounters on informed consent by using an objective structured clinical examination. Their knowledge of informed consent was also evaluated by using a 20-question short-answer written examination immediately after the seminars and then 3 weeks later. RESULTS: Twenty-nine residents completed the study; two withdrew because of an emergency. The SP seminar group had lower SP interview scores on the 22 item checklist compared with the traditional seminar group (57% versus 66%; difference -9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17% to -1%, P=.03). The SP seminar group also had lower knowledge scores on the questionnaire immediately after the seminar (60% versus 73%; difference -13%; 95% CI, -21% to -4%, P=.003). The difference in knowledge scores persisted at 3 weeks (41% for the SP group, 59% for the traditional seminar group; difference -18%; 95% CI, -29% to -7%; P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: A traditional seminar was superior to an SP-based seminar for teaching informed consent to surgical residents.