Taylor Silas, Bobba Samantha, Roome Sophie, Ahmadzai Marrwah, Tran Daniel, Vickers Dominic, Bhatti Mominah, De Silva Dinuksha, Dunstan Lauren, Falconer Ryan, Kaur Harleen, Kitson Jed, Patel Jamie, Shulruf Boaz
UNSW Medicine, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Department of Ophthalmology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Australia.
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2018 Jan-Apr;31(1):10-16. doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.239040.
Educators utilize real patients, simulated patients (SP), and student role play (RP) in communication skills training (CST) in medical curricula. The chosen modality may depend more on resource availability than educational stage and student needs. In this study, we set out to determine whether an inexpensive volunteer SP program offered an educational advantage compared to RP for CST in preclinical medical students.
Students and volunteer SPs participated in interactions across two courses. Students allocated to SP interactions in one course participated in RP in the other course and vice versa. Audio recordings of interactions were made, and these were rated against criterion descriptors in a modified Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation Guide.
Independent t-test scores comparing ratings of RP and SP groups revealed no significant differences between methodologies.
This study demonstrates that volunteer SPs are not superior to RP, when used in CST targeted at preclinical students. This finding is consistent with existing literature, yet we suggest that it is imperative to consider the broader purpose of CST and the needs of stakeholders. Consequently, it may be beneficial to use mixed methods of CST in medical programs.
在医学课程的沟通技能培训（CST）中，教育工作者会利用真实患者、模拟患者（SP）和学生角色扮演（RP）。所选择的方式可能更多地取决于资源可用性，而非教育阶段和学生需求。在本研究中，我们着手确定与RP相比，一个低成本的志愿者SP项目在临床前医学生的CST中是否具有教育优势。
学生和志愿者SP参与了两门课程中的互动。在一门课程中被分配进行SP互动的学生，在另一门课程中参与RP，反之亦然。对互动进行了音频录制，并根据改良的卡尔加里 - 剑桥参考观察指南中的标准描述符进行评分。
比较RP组和SP组评分的独立t检验分数显示，两种方法之间没有显著差异。
本研究表明，在针对临床前学生的CST中，志愿者SP并不优于RP。这一发现与现有文献一致，但我们建议必须考虑CST的更广泛目的和利益相关者的需求。因此，在医学项目中使用混合的CST方法可能是有益的。
