Short Presentations 1 – Simulated Patients – 17.03.2017 – 11.30 to 12.45 – Lecture hall A 003
Chair: Henrike Hölzer
|11:30 – 11:45||Competencies of standardized persons during role-play and feedback-discussion|
|11:45 – 12:00||Using Serious Games to Train Patient Observation|
Claudia Schlegel, Uwe Weber
Berner Bildungszentrum Pflege, Switzerland; email@example.com
This is a Research In Progress RIP
Introduction: A key precondition to improve patient safety is, that clinical practitioners are able to identify everyday risks to patients. Patient safety is an important element in the training of nurses. Clinical practice feedback shows that second-semester nursing students are experiencing difficulties in assessing the overall situation presented by a patient and his environment using focused observation, and initiating the necessary measures. Focused patient observation is crucial, as it increases patient safety. In order for students to learn and train patient observation in their first semester, a serious game was developed. Serious games are conceptually aimed at conveying knowledge and allowing players to discover and learn. The question is whether serious games represent a lastingly instructive teaching method.
Method: In order to assess the efficacy of serious games as a teaching method, the study was designed as a static group comparison. Two groups of first-semester nursing students (n=86) took part in the study. The intervention group played a game with a video still of a patient room presenting risks for the patient. Students were asked to find 11 errors using a limited number of clicks. At each correct click, a text faded in explaining why this represented a potential hazard. When students did not achieve the required number of correct answers or when they exceeded the number of clicks allowed, they went back to reading about the topic before playing the game again. Once the game had been successfully completed, a reading assignment gave students the opportunity to deepen their knowledge of the topic.
The control group was given the same still image in paper form, was tasked to find the same 11 errors, and was also able to read why these errors represented potential risks. They were given the same reading assignment to deepen their knowledge of the topic.
The posttest was conducted as a formative OSCE station. Students from both groups were run through a ward presenting a re-enacted scene similar to the still they had seen. Students had to tell observers which measures they would initiate to improve patient safety. Observers were blinded and did not know which students belonged to which group.
Data analysis will take place in winter 2016.
|12:00 – 12:15||SPs’ knowledge of and adherence to feedback standards – Results from feedback trainings and an observational study|
Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: Feedback trainings are an extremely important part of the instruction of Simulated Patients (SPs). As we make much effort to prepare our SPs adequately, giving feedback remains a very difficult task and its quality is often not as high as desired. But what are the causes for that? Do SPs not know or understand all standards? Or do they find it too just difficult to meet them all? Through different approaches we tried to gain more insight into SPs’ knowledge of our feedback standards on one hand and their adherence or non-adherence to this standards on the other hand.
Research question: Our main research questions were: Which of our standards for giving feedback do SPs know? And which of those standards do they meet? We wanted to know if it is possible to identify certain patterns of feedback rules that are hardly known, that are often missed out on and to examine potential connections between those two areas.
Methods: We held several “advanced” feedbacks trainings and asked SPs afterwards, which of the standards they had already known before. Additionally, we observed 34 SPs while giving feedback after a simulated encounter in a communication skills course. For the observations we used an assessment tool for SP-feedback, developed by the SP Committee of the German Association for Medical Education (GMA) which includes 21 feedback standards (e.g. SP uses specific examples in his/her feedback).
Results: 45 SPs took part in one of the feedback trainings. The overall knowledge level was high with 15 out of 21 standards that were known by at least 80% of SPs. Areas with low knowledge levels were for example connected to a well-balanced speaking time between learner and SP or the checking of students’ understanding of SP’s feedback. This results were supported by our observations (N=34), where we found low adherence rates in the same areas. We also found some discrepancies, e.g. that SPs adherence to using descriptive vocabulary in their feedback is rather low (50%), although almost all SP (86%) stated, they know this rule.
Discussion: The participants in our trainings and in the observational study are a representative sample of our SP pool (considering age, experience etc.), still 45, respectively 34 data sets, only have a limited explanatory power. Furthermore the data from the feedback trainings cannot be linked to the data from the observations on an individual level. Nonetheless the results show that many standards with low adherence levels are standards which a lot of SPs do not seem to know. Feedback trainings which focus on securing the knowledge and understanding of all standards therefore present a first step to an improved feedback quality. In a second step we must turn our attention to standards which are known, but not yet met.
Conclusion: Our research suggests that some deficits in the quality of SPs’ feedback are connected to SPs’ knowledge and understanding of the feedback standards. This problem can be easily approached in future trainings. Further research is needed to find out the reasons why some standards are known, but not met. Possibilities include that these standards are too difficult for some SPs or have not been trained well enough or that they are simply considered as not important by SPs.
|12:15 – 12:30||Patient simulation in neurology : choosing sensory and attention cueing for patient with Parkinson’s disease and teaching its use in everyday life|
Sylvie Ferchichi, Isabelle Chebil Dobbi, Corinne Gaudin, Nicolas Perret
|12:30 – 12:45||Can death be simulated? Using simulation to teach nursing students about End-of-Life Care|