英国医疗保健专业人员在多学科现场医学模拟程序中使用人体模型和模拟患者的比较

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-20 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.8
Marrit Meerdink, Joshua Khan
{"title":"英国医疗保健专业人员在多学科现场医学模拟程序中使用人体模型和模拟患者的比较","authors":"Marrit Meerdink,&nbsp;Joshua Khan","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Simulation training is increasingly popular in healthcare education, and often relies on specially designed manikins. However, it is also possible to work with actors, or simulated patients (SPs), which may provide a greater sense of realism. This study aimed to compare these 2 approaches, to ascertain which makes healthcare professionals feel most comfortable, which leads to the greatest improvement in confidence, and which is most beneficial to learning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was embedded in a pre-existing multidisciplinary in situ simulation program. A multidisciplinary group of learners from a range of backgrounds—including nurses, doctors, and other allied health professionals—were asked to complete a questionnaire about their learning preferences. We collected 204 responses from 40 simulation sessions over 4 months, from September to December 2019. Of these 204 responses, 123 described using an SP and 81 described using a manikin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 58% of respondents believed they would feel more comfortable working with an actor, while 17% would feel more comfortable using a manikin. Learners who used both modalities reported a significant increase in confidence (P<0.0001 for both). Participants felt that both modalities were beneficial to learning, but SPs provided significantly more benefits to learning than manikins (P<0.0001). The most common reason favoring SP-based simulation was the greater realism.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In scenarios that could reasonably be provided using either modality, we suggest that educators should give greater consideration to using SP-based simulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"18 ","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175761/pdf/","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the use of manikins and simulated patients in a multidisciplinary in situ medical simulation program for healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Marrit Meerdink,&nbsp;Joshua Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Simulation training is increasingly popular in healthcare education, and often relies on specially designed manikins. However, it is also possible to work with actors, or simulated patients (SPs), which may provide a greater sense of realism. This study aimed to compare these 2 approaches, to ascertain which makes healthcare professionals feel most comfortable, which leads to the greatest improvement in confidence, and which is most beneficial to learning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was embedded in a pre-existing multidisciplinary in situ simulation program. A multidisciplinary group of learners from a range of backgrounds—including nurses, doctors, and other allied health professionals—were asked to complete a questionnaire about their learning preferences. We collected 204 responses from 40 simulation sessions over 4 months, from September to December 2019. Of these 204 responses, 123 described using an SP and 81 described using a manikin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 58% of respondents believed they would feel more comfortable working with an actor, while 17% would feel more comfortable using a manikin. Learners who used both modalities reported a significant increase in confidence (P<0.0001 for both). Participants felt that both modalities were beneficial to learning, but SPs provided significantly more benefits to learning than manikins (P<0.0001). The most common reason favoring SP-based simulation was the greater realism.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In scenarios that could reasonably be provided using either modality, we suggest that educators should give greater consideration to using SP-based simulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

目的:模拟训练在医疗保健教育中越来越流行,往往依赖于专门设计的人体模型。然而,也可以与演员或模拟病人(SPs)一起工作,这可能会提供更大的真实感。本研究旨在比较这两种方法,以确定哪一种方法使医疗保健专业人员感到最舒适,哪一种方法能最大程度地提高信心,哪一种方法对学习最有益。方法:本研究嵌入了一个预先存在的多学科原位模拟程序。一组来自不同背景的多学科学习者——包括护士、医生和其他专职卫生专业人员——被要求完成一份关于他们学习偏好的调查问卷。我们从2019年9月至12月的4个月里,从40次模拟会议中收集了204份反馈。在这204个回答中,123个使用SP描述,81个使用人体模型描述。结果:我们发现58%的受访者认为与演员一起工作更舒服,而17%的人认为使用人体模型更舒服。使用这两种模式的学习者报告信心显著增加(结论:在可以合理地使用任何一种模式的情况下,我们建议教育工作者应该更多地考虑使用基于sp的模拟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the use of manikins and simulated patients in a multidisciplinary in situ medical simulation program for healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom

Purpose: Simulation training is increasingly popular in healthcare education, and often relies on specially designed manikins. However, it is also possible to work with actors, or simulated patients (SPs), which may provide a greater sense of realism. This study aimed to compare these 2 approaches, to ascertain which makes healthcare professionals feel most comfortable, which leads to the greatest improvement in confidence, and which is most beneficial to learning.

Methods: This study was embedded in a pre-existing multidisciplinary in situ simulation program. A multidisciplinary group of learners from a range of backgrounds—including nurses, doctors, and other allied health professionals—were asked to complete a questionnaire about their learning preferences. We collected 204 responses from 40 simulation sessions over 4 months, from September to December 2019. Of these 204 responses, 123 described using an SP and 81 described using a manikin.

Results: We found that 58% of respondents believed they would feel more comfortable working with an actor, while 17% would feel more comfortable using a manikin. Learners who used both modalities reported a significant increase in confidence (P<0.0001 for both). Participants felt that both modalities were beneficial to learning, but SPs provided significantly more benefits to learning than manikins (P<0.0001). The most common reason favoring SP-based simulation was the greater realism.

Conclusion: In scenarios that could reasonably be provided using either modality, we suggest that educators should give greater consideration to using SP-based simulation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
The irtQ R package: a user-friendly tool for item response theory-based test data analysis and calibration. Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study Presidential address 2024: the expansion of computer-based testing to numerous health professions licensing examinations in Korea, preparation of computer-based practical tests, and adoption of the medical metaverse. Development and validity evidence for the resident-led large group teaching assessment instrument in the United States: a methodological study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1