Dataset Information

Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

SUBMITTER: Zendejas B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3710391 | biostudies-other | 2013 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

Zendejas Benjamin B Brydges Ryan R Wang Amy T AT Cook David A DA

Journal of general internal medicine 20130801 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous review ...[more]

PMID: 23595919

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeSimulation-based medical education (SBME) is gaining prominence as a tool to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated competency-based assessment educational goals. SBME is used in radiation oncology, although the type and extent are not clear. This study reports a systematic literature review designed to clarify the type and extent of radiation oncology SBME.Methods and materialsThe systematic review focused on radiation oncology SBME literature. The methods followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were identified according to the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and setting) framework. The population included undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education learners. Studies were limited to English-language studies published on or after January 1, 1990, in peer-reviewed journals. PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and in-press articles were searched. The PubMed search was conducted using predefined search terms. References and similar articles were examined. Medical Subject Headings terms in selected articles were reviewed to ensure relevant terms were included.ResultsFifty-four SBME publications met the inclusion criteria. Only 9 of 54 studies (17%) self-identified as SBME. SBME types included screen-based simulators (56%), simulated environments (13%), virtual reality and haptic systems (13%), simulated patients (11%), part-task trainers (6%), and computer-based systems with mannequins (2%). A variety of radiation oncology skill sets were addressed, including contouring (54%), treatment planning (20%), clinical decision making (17%), anatomy and/or radiology (13%), radiation biology and/or physics (13%), communication skills and/or patient education (13%), brachytherapy (13%), and immobilization (11%). A target learning population was defined in 47 studies, including residents (53%), attending physicians (36%), medical students (21%), medical physicists (11%), radiation therapists (9%), nurses (6%), administrative staff (4%), and dosimetrists (4%). Learner feedback was reported in 32 studies.ConclusionsOverall, this systematic literature review provides context and guidance for future radiation oncology SBME development. Appropriately framing SBME reports in the radiation oncology literature will facilitate development, implementation, and evaluation of SBME interventions. SBME resources should be centralized to facilitate dissemination and share resources.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the scope of active patient involvement in medical education, addressing the current knowledge gaps relating to rationale and motivation for involvement, recruitment and preparation, roles, learning outcomes and key procedural contributors.MethodsThe authors performed a systematic search of the PubMed database of publications between 2003 and 2018. Original studies in which patients take on active roles in the development, delivery or evaluation of undergraduate medical education and written in English were eligible for inclusion. Included studies' references were searched for additional articles. Quality of papers was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Results49 articles were included in the review. Drivers for patient involvement included policy requirements and patients' own motivations to contribute to society and learning. Patients were engaged in a variety of educational settings in and outside of the hospital. The vast majority of studies describe patients taking on the role of a patient teacher and formative assessor. More recent studies suggest that patients are increasingly involved in course and curriculum development, student selection and summative assessment. The new body of empirical evidence shows the wide range of learning objectives was pursued through patient participation, including competencies as professional, communicator, collaborator, leader and health advocate, but not scholar. Measures to support sustainable patient involvement included longitudinal institutional incorporation, patient recruitment and/or training, resource support and clear commitment by faculty. The importance and advantages of patient involvement were highlighted by students, faculty and patients themselves; however, organisations must continue to consider, monitor and take steps to mitigate any potential harms to patients and students.DiscussionThis systematic review provides new knowledge and practical insights to physicians and faculty on how to incorporate active patient involvement in their institutions and daily practice, and provides suggested action points to patient organisations wishing to engage in medical education.

Project description:IntroductionGood handoffs require teamwork, clear communication, a cognitively safe environment, and a good understanding of the patient's medical needs. Complex tertiary care training institutions require multiple handoffs over a patient's time in the hospital. Medical students need better handoff education. We designed a handoff training exercise using a simulated patient care environment for students to practice and observe multiple handoffs over time.MethodsAn initial large-group didactic session provides direct instruction on handoffs. In small groups, students are subsequently assigned roles as individual physicians in a chain of providers during a simulated patient hospitalization over several days, with an additional student as an observer. Blinded to any prior discussion, student physicians sequentially give and receive handoffs about the patient from a previous physician as their simulated hospital course evolves. The observer shares his or her insights, and a large-group structured debriefing exercise follows.ResultsIn both 2015 and 2016, we implemented this session with a cohort of 30 fourth-year medical students. Most recently we implemented this with chief residents, and a group of 20 third-year pediatric clerkship students. We reviewed a selection of the discussion guides and found reporters/ observers noted that participants stated the primary problem 95% of the time (19 of 20 handoffs), the patient acuity 90% of the time (18 of 20 handoffs), and a clear contingency plan 85% of the time (17 of 20 handoffs).DiscussionWe found students initially to be preoccupied with making correct clinical decisions instead of giving effective handoffs, and consequently we clarified details and adjusted clinical information to be more transparent. Results suggest the session achieves our goals of using a structured handoff method to communicate higher-level information and debrief effectively with peers. We envision this activity to be applicable to teaching handoffs to residents, nurses, and other health care professionals, as well as possibly in diverse clinical environments or in collaboration with outpatient providers.

Project description:To determine if bedside rounds, compared to other forms of hospital ward rounds, improve learning outcomes in medical education. For this systematic review, the authors searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception through February 20, 2020. Experimental studies were included if they (1) compared bedside rounds to any other form of rounds in a hospital-based setting, and (2) reported a quantitative comparison of a learning outcome (e.g., learner reaction, knowledge, skills, behavior, health care delivery) among physicians in training (medical students, residents, fellows). Extraction elements were summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of design, implementation, and outcomes. Twenty studies met inclusion criteria, including 7 randomized trials. All studies involved resident physicians, and 11 also involved medical students. The design and implementation of bedside rounds varied widely, with most studies (n = 13) involving cointerventions (e.g., staff education, real-time order entry).Of the 15 studies that reported learner satisfaction, 7 favored bedside rounds, 4 favored the control, and 4 were equivocal. Of the 4 studies reporting an outcome of learners' knowledge and skills, 2 favored bedside rounds and 2 were equivocal. Of the 8 studies that reported on learner behavior (e.g., bedside communication with patients), 5 favored bedside rounds, 1 favored control, and 2 were equivocal. Finally, of the 14 studies that reported a health care delivery outcome (e.g., teamwork, rounding time), 8 favored bedside rounds and 6 were equivocal. Due to the high risk of bias and unexplained heterogeneity across studies, the overall strength of evidence was low. In hospital-based settings, learners' satisfaction with bedside rounds is mixed. However, bedside rounds appear to have a positive effect on learner behavior and health care delivery. Given their potential value, additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of educationally successful bedside rounds.

Dataset Information

Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

Publications

Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets