دورية أكاديمية
The Use of Standardized Patients to Teach Communication Skills-A Systematic Review.
| العنوان: | The Use of Standardized Patients to Teach Communication Skills-A Systematic Review. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Rutherford-Hemming T; From the Emergency Department (T.R.-H.), UNC Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; School of Nursing (A.H.), Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS; and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies (T.P.N.), University of California, San Francisco, Mission Bay Campus Valley Tower, San Francisco, CA., Herrington A, Ngo TP |
| المصدر: | Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare [Simul Healthc] 2024 Jan 01; Vol. 19 (1S), pp. S122-S128. |
| نوع المنشور: | Systematic Review; Journal Article |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101264408 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1559-713X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 15592332 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Simul Healthc Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Original Publication: Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Patient Simulation* , Communication*, Humans ; Clinical Competence ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care |
| مستخلص: | Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize research completed between 2011 and 2021 to report the current state of the science on the use of standardized patients (SPs) to teach communication skills. The research question that guided this study was, "Among health care professionals, does the use of SP methodology as a means of teaching communication skills result in improved learner knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or patient outcomes when compared with other simulation methodologies?" Design: This review was reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Data SourcesFour databases (CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Scopus) were searched using a combination of medical subject headings, or Mesh terms, as well as keywords to retrieve nonindexed citations.Review MethodsThe inclusion criteria were broad to complete a comprehensive search of the literature. To be eligible for inclusion, a study had to be original research that compared simulation using an SP to another simulation methodology. The study had to evaluate communication knowledge, skill, attitude, and/or patient outcome with an academic or practicing health care professional. Results: The initial database search strategy yielded 8058 citations. These results were narrowed down to 18 studies through an in-depth analysis of each article using identified inclusion criteria. The SPs were superior to role play in 1 (33%, n = 3) study where knowledge was evaluated, 6 (75%, n = 8) studies where skills were evaluated, and 1 (20%, n = 5) study where attitude was evaluated. The SPs were compared with a manikin in 5 studies. The SPs were superior to a manikin in 3 (60%, n = 5) studies where knowledge was measured and in 1 (100%, n = 1) study where attitude was measured. No study measured the outcome knowledge of an SP to a manikin. Finally, SPs were compared with a virtual SP in 3 studies. When knowledge was evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in 1 study (100%, n = 1). When skills were evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in 1 study (50%, n = 2), and when attitude was evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in no study (0%, n = 2). No study evaluated patient outcomes in the comparison of an SP to another simulation methodology. Conclusions: Studies show a weak indication that SP-based education is superior to other simulation methodologies in most contexts. However more rigorous studies with larger sample sizes, validated instruments, and effects on patient outcomes are needed to definitively determine the optimal method/modality for teaching communication to health care professionals. Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2023 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.) |
| References: | Lioce L, Lopreito J, Downing D, et al, eds. Healthcare Simulation Dictionary. 2nd ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. Kaplonyi J, Bowles KA, Nestel D, et al. Understanding the impact of simulated patients on health care learners' communication skills: a systematic review. Med Educ 2017;51(12):1209–1219. Bearman M, Palermo C, Allen LM, Williams B. Learning empathy through simulation: a systematic literature review. Simul Healthc 2015;10(5):308–319. Pascucci RC, Weinstock PH, O'Connor BE, Fancy KM, Meyer EC. Integrating actors into a simulation program: a primer. Simul Healthc 2014;9(2):120–126. Kwame A, Petrucka PM. A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs 2021;20(1):158. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. Available at: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/national_safety_and_quality_health_service_nsqhs_standards_second_edition_-_updated_may_2021.pdf. Accessed December 01, 2022. Rutherford-Hemming T, Alfes CM, Breymier TL. A systematic review of the use of standardized patients as a simulation modality in nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect 2019;40(2):84–90. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:1–9. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Philadelphia, PA: David McKay Company, Inc; 1956. Lang NM, Marek KD. The classification of patient outcomes. J Prof Nurs 1990;6(3):158–163. Cook DE, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale evaluation. Acad Med 2015;90(8):1067–1076. Agago TA, Wonde SG, Bramo SS, Asaminew T. Simulated patient-based communication skills training for undergraduate medical students at a university in Ethiopia. Adv Med Educ Pract 2021;12:713–721. Alfes CM. Standardized patient versus role-play strategies: a comparative study measuring patient-centered care and safety in psychiatric mental health nursing. Nurs Educ Perspect 2015;36(6):403–405. Bagacean C, Cousin I, Ubertini AH, et al. Simulated patient and role play methodologies for communication skills and empathy training of undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ 2020;20(1):1–8. Bosse HM, Schultz JH, Nickel M, et al. The effect of using standardized patients or peer role play on ratings of undergraduate communication training: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2012;87(3):300–306. Gillette C, Rudolph M, Rockich-Winston N, Stanton R, Anderson HG Jr. Improving pharmacy student communication outcomes using standardized patients. Am J Pharm Educ 2017;81(6):1–8. Herchenröther J, Tiedemann E, Vogel H, Simmenroth A. Which teaching method is more effective in a communication course—role-playing versus simulated patients, taught by tutors or faculty staff? A randomized trial. GMS J Med Educ 2021;38(3):1–18. Koponen J, Pyörälä E, Isotalus P. Comparing three experiential learning methods and their effect on medical students' attitudes to learning communication skills. Med Teach 2012;34(3):e198–e207. Paramasivan A, Khoo D. Standardized patients versus peer role play—exploring the experience, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness in residency training module for breaking bad news. J Surg Educ 2019;77(2):479–484. Park KY, Park HK, Hwang HS. Group randomized trial of teaching tobacco-cessation counseling to senior medical students: a peer role-play module versus a standardized patient module. BMC Med Educ 2019;19(1):1–9. Schlegel C, Woermann U, Shaha M, Rethans JJ, van der VC. Effects of communication training on real practice performance: a role-play module versus a standardized patient module. J Nurs Educ 2012;51(1):16–22. Coffey F, Tsuchiya K, Timmons S, Baxendale B, Adolphs S, Atkins S. Simulated patients versus manikins in acute-care scenarios. Clin Teach 2016;13(4):257–261. Ignacio J, Dolmans D, Scherpbier A, Rethans JJ, Chan S, Liaw SY. Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: a mixed methods study. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35(12):1161–1168. Johnson KV, Scott AL, Franks L. Impact of standardized patients on first semester nursing students self-confidence, satisfaction, and communication in a simulated clinical case. SAGE Open Nurs 2020;6:1–7. King J, Beanlands S, Fiset V, et al. Using interprofessional simulation to improve collaborative competences for nursing, physiotherapy, and respiratory therapy students. J Interprof Care 2016;30(5):599–605. Karadas MM, Terzioglu F. The impact of the using high-fidelity simulation and standardized patients to management of postpartum hemorrhage in undergraduate nursing students: a randomized controlled study in Turkey. Health Care Women Int 2019;40(5):597–612. Aper L, Reniers J, Koole S, Valcke M, Derese A. Impact of three alternative consultation training formats on self-efficacy and consultation skills of medical students. Med Teach 2012;34(7):e500–e507. Kleinsmith A, Rivera-Gutierrez D, Finney G, Cendan J, Lok B. Understanding empathy training with virtual patients. Comput Hum Behav 2015;52:151–158. O'Rourke SR, Branford KR, Brooks TL, Ives LT, Nagendran A, Compton SN. The emotional and behavioral impact of delivering bad news to virtual versus real standardized patients: a pilot study. Teach Learn Med 2020;32(2):139–149. Chua WL, Rahim NRBA, McKenna L, Ho JTY, Liaw SY. Intraprofessional collaboration between enrolled and registered nurses in the care of clinically deteriorating ward patients: a qualitative study. Aust Crit Care 2022;35(1):81–88. |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20240119 Date Completed: 20240122 Latest Revision: 20240122 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240122 |
| DOI: | 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000766 |
| PMID: | 38240624 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 1559-713X |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000766 |