The Use of Virtual Standardized Patients for Practice in High Value Care.
Journal
Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
ISSN: 1559-713X
Titre abrégé: Simul Healthc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101264408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2023
01 Jun 2023
Historique:
medline:
1
6
2023
pubmed:
25
3
2022
entrez:
24
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study examined the influence of high value care (HVC)-focused virtual standardized patients (VSPs) on learner attitudes toward cost-conscious care (CCC), performance on subsequent standardized patient (SP) encounters, and the correlation of VSP performance with educational outcomes. After didactic sessions on HVC, third-year medical students participated in a randomized crossover design of simulation modalities consisting of 4 VSPs and 3 SPs. Surveys of attitudes toward CCC were administered before didactics and after the first simulation method. Performance markers included automated VSP grading and, for SP cases, faculty-graded observational checklists and patient notes. Performance was compared between modalities using t tests and analysis of variance and then correlated with US Medical Licensing Examination performance. Sixty-six students participated (VSP first: n = 37; SP-first: n = 29). Attitudes toward CCC significantly improved after training (Cohen d = 0.35, P = 0.043), regardless of modality. Simulation order did not impact learner performance for SP encounters. Learners randomized to VSP first performed significantly better within VSP cases for interview (Cohen d = 0.55, P = 0.001) and treatment (Cohen d = 0.50, P = 0.043). The HVC component of learner performance on the SP simulations significantly correlated with US Medical Licensing Examination step 1 ( r = 0.26, P = 0.038) and step 2 clinical knowledge ( r = 0.33, P = 0.031). High value care didactics combined with either VSPs or SPs positively influenced attitudes toward CCC. The ability to detect an impact of VSPs on learner SP performance was limited by content specificity and sample size.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35322798
doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000659
pii: 01266021-202306000-00001
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
147-154Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Levitt L, Claxton G, Cox C, Gonzales S, Kamal R. Assessing the performance of the U.S. health system. In: Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker . Kaiser Family Foundation; November 30th, 2014: Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/assessing-the-cost-and-performance-of-the-u-s-health-system/ . Accessed January 20, 2017.
Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018;319(10):1024–1039.
Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA 2019;322(15):1501–1509.
Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8(11):e78962.
Chien AT, Lehmann LS, Hatfield LA, et al. A randomized trial of displaying paid price information on imaging study and procedure ordering rates. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32(4):434–448.
Durand DJ, Feldman LS, Lewin JS, Brotman DJ. Provider cost transparency alone has no impact on inpatient imaging utilization. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(2):108–113.
Goetz C, Rotman SR, Hartoularos G, Bishop TF. The effect of charge display on cost of care and physician practice behaviors: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30(6):835–842.
Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med 2016;11(1):65–76.
Owens DK, Qaseem A, Chou R, Shekelle P; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions. Ann Intern Med 2011;154(3):174–180.
Weinberger SE. Providing high-value, cost-conscious care: a critical seventh general competency for physicians. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(6):386–388.
Smith CD, Levinson WS; Internal Medicine HVC Advisory Board. A commitment to high-value care education from the internal medicine community. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(9):639–640.
Smith CD. Teaching high-value, cost-conscious care to residents: the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine–American College of Physicians Curriculum. Ann Intern Med . 2012;157(4):284–286.
Leep Hunderfund AN, Starr SR, Dyrbye LN, et al. Imprinting on clinical rotations: multisite survey of high- and low-value medical student behaviors and relationship with healthcare intensity. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34(7):1131–1138.
Rao G, Kanter SL. Physician numeracy as the basis for an evidence-based medicine curriculum. Acad Med 2010;85(11):1794–1799.
West CP, Jaeger TM, McDonald FS. Extended evaluation of a longitudinal medical school evidence-based medicine curriculum. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26(6):611–615.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50(460):892–899.
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(10):1361–1367.
Grady D, Redberg RF. Less is more: how less health care can result in better health. Arch Intern Med 2010;170(9):749–750.
Hauer KE, Fernandez A, Teherani A, Boscardin CK, Saba GW. Assessment of medical students' shared decision-making in standardized patient encounters. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26(4):367–372.
Talbot TB, Kalisch N, Christoffersen K, Lucas G, Forbell E. Natural language understanding performance & use considerations in virtual medical encounters. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016;220:407–413.
Maicher K, Danforth D, Price A, et al. Developing a conversational virtual standardized patient to enable students to practice history-taking skills. Simul Healthc 2017;12(2):124–131.
Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010;85(10):1589–1602.
Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009;43(4):303–311.
Bergin R, Youngblood P, Ayers MK, et al. Interactive simulated patient: experiences with collaborative E-learning in medicine. J Educ Comput Res 2003;29(3):387–400.
Hubal RC, Kizakevich PN, Guinn CI, Merino KD, West SL. The virtual standardized patient. Simulated patient-practitioner dialog for patient interview training. Stud Health Technol Inform 2000;70:133–138.
Schittek Janda M, Mattheos N, Nattestad A, et al. Simulation of patient encounters using a virtual patient in periodontology instruction of dental students: design, usability, and learning effect in history-taking skills. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8(3):111–119.
Stevens A, Hernandez J, Johnsen K, et al. The use of virtual patients to teach medical students history taking and communication skills. Am J Surg 2006;191(6):806–811.
Vash JH, Yunesian M, Shariati M, Keshvari A, Harirchi I. Virtual patients in undergraduate surgery education: a randomized controlled study. ANZ J Surg 2007;77(1–2):54–59.
Fleiszer D, Hoover ML, Posel N, Razek T, Bergman S. Development and validation of a tool to evaluate the evolution of clinical reasoning in trauma using virtual patients. J Surg Educ 2018;75(3):779–786.
Forsberg E, Ziegert K, Hult H, Fors U. Assessing progression of clinical reasoning through virtual patients: an exploratory study. Nurse Educ Pract 2016;16(1):97–103.
Kleinert R, Heiermann N, Wahba R, Chang DH, Hölscher AH, Stippel DL. Design, realization, and first validation of an immersive web-based virtual patient simulator for training clinical decisions in surgery. J Surg Educ 2015;72:1131–1138.
McCoy L, Pettit RK, Lewis JH, Allgood JA, Bay C, Schwartz FN. Evaluating medical student engagement during virtual patient simulations: a sequential, mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ 2016;16:20.
Triola M, Feldman H, Kalet AL, et al. A randomized trial of teaching clinical skills using virtual and live standardized patients. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21(5):424–429.
Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, et al. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Adv Simul (Lond) 2016;1:25.
Leep Hunderfund AN, Dyrbye LN, Starr SR, et al. Role modeling and regional health care intensity: U.S. medical student attitudes toward and experiences with cost-conscious Care. Acad Med 2017;92(5):694–702.
Clancy C, Dine CJ, Williams D, Smith CD. The High Value Care Curriculum for Internal Medicine Residents. (Version 4.0 current, Version 3.0 used in study). American College of Physicians. 2018. Available at: https://www.acponline.org/clinical-information/high-value-care/medical-educators-resources/curriculum-for-educators-and-residents . Accessed February 25, 2020.
Yudkowsky R, Park YS, Riddle J, Palladino C, Bordage G. Clinically discriminating checklists versus thoroughness checklists: improving the validity of performance test scores. Acad Med 2014;89(7):1057–1062.
Bond WF, Lynch TJ, Mischler MJ, et al. Virtual standardized patient simulation: case development and pilot application to high-value care. Simul Healthc 2019;14(4):241–250.
Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15(11):1010–1016.
ten Cate O, Chen HC, Hoff RG, Peters H, Bok H, van der Schaaf M. Curriculum development for the workplace using entrustable professional activities (EPAs): AMEE guide no. 99. Medical teacher . 2015;37(11):983–1002.
Yudkowsky R, Park YS, Downing SM. Assessment in Health Professions Education . Routledge; Routledge in New York2019.
Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 1994;6(4):284–290.
Natt N, Starr SR, Reed DA, Park YS, Dyrbye LN, Leep Hunderfund AN. High-value, cost-conscious communication skills in undergraduate medical education: validity evidence for scores derived from two standardized patient scenarios. Simul Healthc 2018;13(5):316–323.
Pahwa AK, Eaton K, Apfel A, Bertram A, Ridell R, Cayea D. Effect of a high value care curriculum on standardized patient exam in the core clerkship in internal medicine. BMC Med Educ 2020;20(1):365.
Turnbull J, Danoff D, Norman G. Content specificity and oral certification examinations. Medical education . 1996;30(1):56–59.
Dannefer EF. Beyond assessment of learning toward assessment for learning: educating tomorrow's physicians. Med Teach 2013;35(7):560–563.
Aquifer high value care: a case-based virtual course. 2020. Available at: https://aquifer.org/courses/high-value-care/ 2020. Accessed August 20, 2021.
Avery CS, Beck J, Padrez R, et al. Developing the PedsValue modules—a national pediatric high value care curriculum. Acad Pediatr 2017;17(5):471–475.
McDaniel CE, White AA, Bradford MC, et al. The high-value care rounding tool: development and validity evidence. Acad Med 2018;93(2):199–206.
Moser EM, Huang GC, Packer CD, et al. SOAP-V: introducing a method to empower medical students to be change agents in bending the cost curve. J Hosp Med 2016;11(3):217–220.