An Innovative Blended Learning Approach Using Virtual Patients As Preparation for Skills Laboratory Training: Perceptions of Students and Tutors

Overview

Journal BMC Med Educ

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Medical Education

Date 2013 Feb 14

PMID 23402663

Citations 20

Authors

Ronny Lehmann

Hans Martin Bosse

Anke Simon

Christoph Nikendei

Soren Huwendiek

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Currently only a few reports exist on how to prepare medical students for skills laboratory training. We investigated how students and tutors perceive a blended learning approach using virtual patients (VPs) as preparation for skills training.

Methods: Fifth-year medical students (N=617) were invited to voluntarily participate in a paediatric skills laboratory with four specially designed VPs as preparation. The cases focused on procedures in the laboratory using interactive questions, static and interactive images, and video clips. All students were asked to assess the VP design. After participating in the skills laboratory 310 of the 617 students were additionally asked to assess the blended learning approach through established questionnaires. Tutors' perceptions (N=9) were assessed by semi-structured interviews.

Results: From the 617 students 1,459 VP design questionnaires were returned (59.1%). Of the 310 students 213 chose to participate in the skills laboratory; 179 blended learning questionnaires were returned (84.0%). Students provided high overall acceptance ratings of the VP design and blended learning approach. By using VPs as preparation, skills laboratory time was felt to be used more effectively. Tutors perceived students as being well prepared for the skills laboratory with efficient uses of time.

Conclusion: The overall acceptance of the blended learning approach was high among students and tutors. VPs proved to be a convenient cognitive preparation tool for skills training.

Citing Articles

A novel blended and interprofessional approach to pediatric emergency training: self-assessment, perception, and perceived long-term effects.

Lehmann R, Klinke Petrowsky M, Seitz A, Meyburg J, Eppich W, Hoffmann G BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):1389.

PMID: 39609800 PMC: 11606109. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06381-3.

[Feasibility of clinical examination scenarios under pandemic conditions].

Jakob T, Maier P, Knopf A, Rauch A, Offergeld C, Hildenbrand T HNO. 2024; 72(3):182-189.

PMID: 38305855 PMC: 10879338. DOI: 10.1007/s00106-024-01422-1.

Effectiveness of online practical education on vaccination training in the students of bachelor programs during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Shirahmadi S, Hazavehei S, Abbasi H, Otogara M, Etesamifard T, Roshanaei G PLoS One. 2023; 18(1):e0280312.

PMID: 36634082 PMC: 9836285. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280312.

Online medical teaching during COVID-19: Perspectives from teachers and taught.

Rohila J, Kapoor K, Singh J, Rohilla R, Bansal P, Chhabra P J Educ Health Promot. 2022; 11:247.

PMID: 36177405 PMC: 9514271. DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_691_21.

A Literature Review of Barriers and Opportunities Presented by Digitally Enhanced Practical Skill Teaching and Learning in Health Science Education.

Forde C, OBrien A Med Educ Online. 2022; 27(1):2068210.

PMID: 35445632 PMC: 9037199. DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210.

References

Triola M, Huwendiek S, Levinson A, Cook D . New directions in e-learning research in health professions education: Report of two symposia. Med Teach. 2012; 34(1):e15-20. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.638010. View

Lynagh M, Burton R, Sanson-Fisher R . A systematic review of medical skills laboratory training: where to from here?. Med Educ. 2007; 41(9):879-87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02821.x. View

Ventre K, Collingridge D, DeCarlo D . End-user evaluations of a personal computer-based pediatric advanced life support simulator. Simul Healthc. 2011; 6(3):134-42. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e318207241e. View

McGaghie W, Issenberg S, Petrusa E, Scalese R . A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ. 2010; 44(1):50-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x. View

Lenchus J, Issenberg S, Murphy D, Everett-Thomas R, Erben L, Arheart K . A blended approach to invasive bedside procedural instruction. Med Teach. 2010; 33(2):116-23. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.509412. View

Edelbring S, Dastmalchi M, Hult H, Lundberg I, Dahlgren L . Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011; 16(3):331-45. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-010-9265-0. View

Fischer M, Hege I, Hornlein A, Puppe F, Tonshoff B, Huwendiek S . [Virtual patients in medical education: a comparison of various strategies for curricular integration]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2009; 102(10):648-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2008.11.021. View

Berman N, Fall L, Smith S, Levine D, Maloney C, Potts M . Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships. Acad Med. 2009; 84(7):942-9. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a8c668. View

Bosse H, Nickel M, Huwendiek S, Junger J, Schultz J, Nikendei C . Peer role-play and standardised patients in communication training: a comparative study on the student perspective on acceptability, realism, and perceived effect. BMC Med Educ. 2010; 10:27. PMC: 2853557. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-27. View

10.

Krautter M, Weyrich P, Schultz J, Buss S, Maatouk I, Junger J . Effects of Peyton's four-step approach on objective performance measures in technical skills training: a controlled trial. Teach Learn Med. 2011; 23(3):244-50. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2011.586917. View

11.

Deladisma A, Johnsen K, Raij A, Rossen B, Kotranza A, Kalapurakal M . Medical student satisfaction using a virtual patient system to learn history-taking communication skills. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008; 132:101-5. View

12.

Huwendiek S, Reichert F, Bosse H, de Leng B, van der Vleuten C, Haag M . Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Med Educ. 2009; 43(6):580-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03369.x. View

13.

Hege I, Ropp V, Adler M, Radon K, Masch G, Lyon H . Experiences with different integration strategies of case-based e-learning. Med Teach. 2008; 29(8):791-7. DOI: 10.1080/01421590701589193. View

14.

Nikendei C, Weyrich P, Junger J, Schrauth M . Medical education in Germany. Med Teach. 2009; 31(7):591-600. DOI: 10.1080/01421590902833010. View

15.

Cook D . The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med. 2005; 80(6):541-8. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200506000-00005. View

16.

Triola M, Feldman H, Kalet A, Zabar S, Kachur E, Gillespie C . A randomized trial of teaching clinical skills using virtual and live standardized patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21(5):424-9. PMC: 1484797. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00421.x. View

17.

Deladisma A, Gupta M, Kotranza A, Bittner 4th J, Imam T, Swinson D . A pilot study to integrate an immersive virtual patient with a breast complaint and breast examination simulator into a surgery clerkship. Am J Surg. 2008; 197(1):102-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.08.012. View

18.

van Merrienboer J, Sweller J . Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010; 44(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x. View

19.

Carrero E, Gomar C, Penzo W, Fabregas N, Valero R, Sanchez-Etayo G . Teaching basic life support algorithms by either multimedia presentations or case based discussion equally improves the level of cognitive skills of undergraduate medical students. Med Teach. 2009; 31(5):e189-95. DOI: 10.1080/01421590802512896. View

20.

Edelbring S, Brostrom O, Henriksson P, Vassiliou D, Spaak J, Dahlgren L . Integrating virtual patients into courses: follow-up seminars and perceived benefit. Med Educ. 2012; 46(4):417-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04219.x. View