Virtual patients versus standardized patients for improving clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology residents. A randomized controlled trial.

Autor: Malik TG; Masters in Medical Education (Scholar), University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan. tayyabam@yahoo.com., Mahboob U; Institute of Health Professions Education & Research, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan., Khan RA; Dean Riphah Institute of Assessment, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan., Alam R; IMBB, University of Lahore, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC medical education [BMC Med Educ] 2024 Apr 22; Vol. 24 (1), pp. 429. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Apr 22.
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05241-4
Abstrakt: Background: History taking and clinical reasoning are important skills that require knowledge, cognition and meta-cognition. It is important that a trainee must experience multiple encounters with different patients to practice these skills. However, patient safety is also important, and trainees are not allowed to handle critically ill patients. To address this issue, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the effectiveness of using Virtual Patients (VP) versus Standardized Patients (SP) in acquiring clinical reasoning skills in ophthalmology postgraduate residents.
Methods: Postgraduate residents from two hospitals in Lahore, Pakistan, were randomized to either the VP group or the SP group and were exposed to clinical reasoning exercise via the VP or SP for 30 min after the pretest. This was followed by a posttest. One month after this activity, a follow-up posttest was conducted. The data were collected and analysed using IBM-SPSS version 25. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to track the effect of learning skills over time.
Results: The mean age of the residents was 28.5 ± 3 years. The male to female ratio was 1:1.1. For the SP group, the mean scores were 12.6 ± 3.08, 16.39 ± 3.01 and 15.39 ± 2.95, and for the VP group, the mean scores were 12.7 ± 3.84, 16.30 ± 3.19 and 15.65 ± 3.18 for the pretest, posttest and follow-up posttest, respectively (p value < 0.00). However, the difference between the VP and SP groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.896). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the VP and SP groups regarding the retention of clinical reasoning ability. In terms of learning gain, compared with the VP group, the SP group had a score of 51.46% immediately after clinical reasoning exercise as compared to VP group, in which it was 49.1%. After one month, it was 38.01 in SP and 40.12% in VP group.
Conclusion: VPs can be used for learning clinical reasoning skills in postgraduate ophthalmology residents in a safe environment. These devices can be used repeatedly without any risk to the real patient. Although similarly useful, SP is limited by its nonavailability for repeated exercises.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: