AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightProgram coordinators and trainers considered the difficulties related to the sustainability of the program and the need for institutional support
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate Simulated Patient Programme in Istanbul Medical Faculty. Feedback from consulting faculty members, students and students who had taken the course in previous years and simulated patients and assessment of the student performances were analysed by quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods: Four hundred ninety students were registered to course in 2010-2011 spring semester. Study group consisted of 84 second year students. Self-assessment of students and performance scores of peers, simulated patients (SP) and faculty members were compared by using checklists, twice for formative purposes and once for final examination. Student performances were assessed as scores of meeting the patient, chief complaint and medical history, systemic enquiry, communication skills during interview and closing the session categories. Three focus group discussions with SPs and students, and in-depth interviews with eight faculty members were conducted for qualitative phase.Results: The scores of the student performances improved for second history taking session. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of total score and sub-skill scores between students’ self-assessment and peer assessments. The difference was significant among students and academic staff. Scores of faculty members were lower than that of students.Conclusions: Students expressed a positive opinion for SP program and gave lowest score of evaluation to the effectiveness of feedback given to them by simulated patient. Both faculty members and students proposed that history-taking should be used for other medical skills. Program coordinators and trainers considered the difficulties related to the sustainability of the program and the need for institutional support
Özet
Objective: To evaluate Simulated Patient Programme in Istanbul Medical Faculty. Feedback from consulting faculty members, students and students who had taken the course in previous years and simulated patients and assessment of the student performances were analysed by quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods: Four hundred ninety students were registered to course in 2010-2011 spring semester. Study group consisted of 84 second year students. Self-assessment of students and performance scores of peers, simulated patients (SP) and faculty members were compared by using checklists, twice for formative purposes and once for final examination. Student performances were assessed as scores of meeting the patient, chief complaint and medical history, systemic enquiry, communication skills during interview and closing the session categories. Three focus group discussions with SPs and students, and in-depth interviews with eight faculty members were conducted for qualitative phase.Results: The scores of the student performances improved for second history taking session. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of total score and sub-skill scores between students’ self-assessment and peer assessments. The difference was significant among students and academic staff. Scores of faculty members were lower than that of students.Conclusions: Students expressed a positive opinion for SP program and gave lowest score of evaluation to the effectiveness of feedback given to them by simulated patient. Both faculty members and students proposed that history-taking should be used for other medical skills. Program coordinators and trainers considered the difficulties related to the sustainability of the program and the need for institutional support.