Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2019.21.3.150

The Relationship between Medical Students' Assessment of Standardized Patients and Patient‐Physician Interaction Score  

Han, Eui-Ryoung (Department of Medical Education, Chonnam National University Medical School)
Kim, Sun (Department of Medical Education, Chonnam National University Medical School)
Chung, Eun-Kyung (Department of Medical Education, Chonnam National University Medical School)
Publication Information
Korean Medical Education Review / v.21, no.3, 2019 , pp. 150-154 More about this Journal
Abstract
When standardized patients (SPs) are used for educational purposes, the authenticity of role play and the quality of feedback are essential requirements of SPs. This study was conducted to investigate medical students' assessment of SPs and to identify the components of SPs' performance that were most strongly correlated with patient-physician interaction score. One hundred and forty-two fourth-year medical students were asked to complete the Maastricht Assessment of Simulated Patients (MaSP) at the end of a clinical performance examination. SPs evaluated the patient-physician interactions using a 4-point Likert scale (1=poor to 4=excellent). Medical students' assessment of SPs using the MaSP was positively correlated with patient-physician interactions (r=0.325, p<0.01). Items addressing the authenticity of role play (e.g., "SPs appear authentic," "SPs might be real patients," and "SPs answer questions in a natural manner") were closely correlated with patient-physician interactions (p<0.001, p=0.027, and p=0.017, respectively). These results showed that the MaSP appears to be a useful instrument for evaluating SPs' performance and that the authenticity of SPs' performance was positively correlated with medical students' interactions. In order to improve patient-physician interactions, medical students should be given opportunities to practice their skills with SPs who have been trained to portray patients with a specific condition in a realistic way.
Keywords
Interpersonal relations; Medical students; Patient simulation; Role playing;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Eddey GE, Robey KL, McConnell JA. Increasing medical student's self-perceived skill and comfort in examining persons with severe developmental disabilities: the use of standardized patients who are nonverbal due to cerebral palsy. Acad Med. 1998;73(10 Suppl):S106-8.   DOI
2 Vannatta JB, Smith KR, Crandall S, Fischer PC, Williams K. Comparison of standardized patients and faculty in teaching medical interviewing. Acad Med. 1996;71(12):1360-2.   DOI
3 Rosenbaum ME, Kreiter C. Teaching delivery of bad news using experiential sessions with standardized patients. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14(3):144-9.   DOI
4 Wilk AI, Jensen NM. Investigation of a brief teaching encounter using standardized patients: teaching residents alcohol screening and intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(5):356-60.   DOI
5 Kim J, Lee K, Yoo D, Yang E. Effects of case type and standardized patient gender on student performance in a clinical performance examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2007;19(1):23-30.   DOI
6 Colliver JA, Vu NV, Marcy ML, Travis TA, Robbs RS. Effects of examinee gender, standardized-patient gender, and their interaction on standardized patients' ratings of examinees' interpersonal and communication skills. Acad Med. 1993;68(2):153-7.   DOI
7 Rutala PJ, Witzke DB, Leko EO, Fulginiti JV. The influences of student and standardized patient genders on scoring in an objective structured clinical examination. Acad Med. 1991;66(9 Suppl):S28-30.   DOI
8 Wind LA, van Dalen J, Muijtjens AM, Rethans JJ. Assessing simulated patients in an educational setting: the MaSP (Maastricht Assessment of Simulated Patients). Med Educ. 2004;38(1):39-44.   DOI
9 Himmelbauer M, Seitz T, Seidman C, Loffler-Stastka H. Standardized patients in psychiatry: the best way to learn clinical skills? BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):72.   DOI
10 Loffler-Stastka H, Datz F, Parth K, Preusche I, Bukowski X, Seidman C. Empathy in Psychoanalysis and Medical Education: what can we learn from each other? BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):74.   DOI
11 Koponen J, Pyorala E, Isotalus P. A comparison of medical students' perceptions of three experiential methods. Health Educ. 2011;111(4):296-318.   DOI
12 Boyle D, Dwinnell B, Platt F. Invite, listen, and summarize: a patient-centered communication technique. Acad Med. 2005;80(1):29-32.   DOI
13 Rystedt H, Sjoblom B. Realism, authenticity, and learning in healthcare simulations: rules of relevance and irrelevance as interactive achievements. Instr Sci. 2012;40(5):785-98.   DOI
14 Kim JH. Does practicing communication skills with standardized patients or completion of elective course of communication skills affect the scores of clinical performance examination? Korean Med Educ Rev. 2011;13(1):35-43.   DOI
15 Lee HM, Park HK, Hwang HS, Chun MY. Patient-centeredness of medical students during a real patient encounter and a standardized patient encounter on the clinical performance examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2013;25(2):139-47.   DOI
16 Gormley G, Sterling M, Menary A, McKeown G. Keeping it real!: enhancing realism in standardised patient OSCE stations. Clin Teach. 2012;9(6):382-6.   DOI
17 Meltzer EC, Shi Z, Suppes A, Hersh JE, Orlander JD, Calhoun AW, et al. Improving communication with surrogate decision-makers: a pilot initiative. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(4):461-6.   DOI
18 Shapiro J. Perspective: Does medical education promote professional alexithymia?: a call for attending to the emotions of patients and self in medical training. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):326-32.   DOI
19 Stokes-Parish JB, Duvivier R, Jolly B. Does appearance matter?: current issues and formulation of a research agenda for moulage in simulation. Simul Healthc. 2017;12(1):47-50.   DOI
20 Pololi LH. Standardised patients: as we evaluate, so shall we reap. Lancet. 1995;345(8955):966-8.   DOI
21 Johnston SC. Anticipating and training the physician of the future: the importance of caring in an age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1105-6.   DOI
22 Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2011;122:48-58.
23 Oh SH, Kim JS, Lee PS. A survey on training and working conditions of residents in 2015. J Korean Med Assoc. 2015;58(12):1179-89.   DOI
24 Fletcher KE, Underwood W 3rd, Davis SQ, Mangrulkar RS, McMahon LF Jr, Saint S. Effects of work hour reduction on residents' lives: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1088-100.   DOI
25 Barrows HS. An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. AAMC. Acad Med. 1993;68(6):443-53.   DOI
26 Jamal MH, Rousseau MC, Hanna WC, Doi SA, Meterissian S, Snell L. Effect of the ACGME duty hours restrictions on surgical residents and faculty: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2011;86(1):34-42.   DOI
27 Cherry MG, Fletcher I, O'Sullivan H, Dornan T. Emotional intelligence in medical education: a critical review. Med Educ. 2014;48(5):468-78.   DOI
28 May W, Park JH, Lee JP. A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996-2005. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):487-92.   DOI
29 Eagles JM, Calder SA, Nicoll KS, Walker LG. A comparison of real patients, simulated patients and videotaped interview in teaching medical students about alcohol misuse. Med Teach. 2001;23(5):490-3.   DOI
30 Kaplonyi J, Bowles KA, Nestel D, Kiegaldie D, Maloney S, Haines T, et al. Understanding the impact of simulated patients on health care learners' communication skills: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2017;51(12):1209-19.   DOI
31 Brown A, Anderson D, Szerlip HM. Using standardized patients to teach disease management skills to preclinical students: a pilot project. Teach Learn Med. 2003;15(2):84-7.   DOI
32 Haist SA, Wilson JF, Pursley HG, Jessup ML, Gibson JS, Kwolek DG, et al. Domestic violence: increasing knowledge and improving skills with a four-hour workshop using standardized patients. Acad Med. 2003;78(10 Suppl):S24-6.   DOI