Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3)
Document Type
- Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Undergraduate medical education (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
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.
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.
Background: Feedback is an essential element of learning. Despite this, students complain about receiving too little feedback in medical examinations, e.g., in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This study aims to implement a written structured feedback tool for use in OSCEs and to analyse the attitudes of students and examiners towards this kind of feedback.
Methods: The participants were OSCE examiners and third-year medical students. This prospective study was conducted using a multistage design. In the first step, an unstructured interrogation of the examiners formed the basis for developing a feedback tool, which was evaluated and then adopted in the next steps.
Results: In total, 351 students and 51 examiners participated in this study. A baseline was created for each category of OSCE station and was supplemented with station-specific items. Each of these items was rated on a three-point scale. In addition to the preformulated answer options, each domain had space for individual comments.
A total of 87.5% of the students and 91.6% of the examiners agreed or rather agreed that written feedback should continue to be used in upcoming OSCEs.
Conclusion: The implementation of structured, written feedback in a curricular, summative examination is possible, and examiners and students would like the feedback to be constant.