LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,226
تعداد مقالات11,174
تعداد مشاهده مقاله77,241,670
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله101,479,368
BAIMAI, SANI, VANICHAROENCHAI, VORAWAN, IRAMANEERAT, CHERDSAK. (1404). Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13(3), 206-217. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2025.106386.2156
SANI BAIMAI; VORAWAN VANICHAROENCHAI; CHERDSAK IRAMANEERAT. "Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13, 3, 1404, 206-217. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2025.106386.2156
BAIMAI, SANI, VANICHAROENCHAI, VORAWAN, IRAMANEERAT, CHERDSAK. (1404). 'Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 13(3), pp. 206-217. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2025.106386.2156
BAIMAI, SANI, VANICHAROENCHAI, VORAWAN, IRAMANEERAT, CHERDSAK. Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1404; 13(3): 206-217. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2025.106386.2156

Bridging Simulation and Practice in Medical History Taking: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment of Standardized Patient Competencies in Early Clinical Exposure

Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
دوره 13، شماره 3، مهر 2025، صفحه 206-217    اصل مقاله (1.06 M)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jamp.2025.106386.2156
نویسندگان
SANI BAIMAI* 1، 2؛ VORAWAN VANICHAROENCHAI2؛ CHERDSAK IRAMANEERAT2، 3
1Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
2Siriraj Health Science Education Excellent Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
چکیده
Introduction: Effective medical history-taking is a cornerstone of clinical practice, yet medical students often struggle due to inadequate structured training and feedback. Standardized patients (SPs) play a crucial role in early clinical exposure (ECE) by providing controlled, realistic patient interactions. However, optimizing SP effectiveness requires a systematic assessment of their competencies.
Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to identify competency gaps in SPs and key areas for improvement to enhance their role in medical training during ECE. A stratified random sampling method was used to recruit 315 medical students from both preclinical (Years 1–3) and clinical (Years 4–6) cohorts at the Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire comprising 36 items across three competency domains: ability, suitability, and credibility. Each item utilized a dualresponse 5-point Likert scale to assess both current SP performance and expected competency levels. The instrument demonstrated high content validity, as assessed by three experts (IOC=0.67–1.00), and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.976). Data analysis included descriptive statistics to summarize the responses and calculate the Modified Priority Needs Index (PNImodified) to prioritize competency gaps. All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics Version 30.0.
Results: Preclinical students identified realistic role portrayal (PNImodified=0.445), adherence to structured guidelines (PNImodified=0.395), and accurate past medical history portrayal
(PNImodified=0.371) as the most critical competency gaps. Clinical students emphasized SPs’ ability to observe non-verbal cues (PNImodified=0.143), provide structured feedback (PNImodified=0.141), and give appropriate feedback to the students (PNImodified=0.126). Across both groups, the three most significant competency gaps were structured feedback on history-taking (PNImodified=0.186), realistic role portrayal (PNImodified=0.181), and appropriate feedback delivery (PNImodified=0.180).
Conclusion: Addressing these competency gaps through structured standardized patient (SP) training programs will enhance the effectiveness of medical history-taking education in early clinical exposure (ECE). Future research should prioritize the development of competency-based SP training frameworks and structured feedback models that support both learning outcomes and clinical preparedness. These findings underscore the need for targeted training strategies which aim at strengthening SP competencies, particularly in realistic role portrayal and high-quality feedback delivery, which are essential for improving student engagement, clinical reasoning, and overall performance in simulated patient encounters.

تازه های تحقیق
کلیدواژه‌ها
Patient؛ History-taking؛ Simulation training؛ Need assessment؛ Medical student
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  1. Kurtz SM, Silverman JD, Draper J. Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine. 2nd ed. UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2005.
  2. Gilliland WR, La Rochelle J, Hawkins R, Dillon GF, Mechaber AJ, Durning SJ. Changes in clinical skills education resulting from learner perceptions and experience. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):343-50.
  3. Siemerkus J, Wiesner LM, Kauczor HU, Nikendei C. Evaluating standardized patient use in teaching history taking and psychopathological assessment for medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):68.
  4. Makoul G, Curry RH. The value of assessing and addressing communication skills. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1057-9.
  5. Cleland JA, Abe K, Rethans JJ. The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 42. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):477-86.
  6. Kraemer E, McLeod TG, Peller J, Bienstock JL. Impact of early clinical exposure to standardized patient interviews on communication skills in preclinical medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):234.
  7. Flanagan O, Cummings KM. Enhancing clinical competence through standardized patient encounters: A systematic review. Med Educ Online. 2023;28(1):2110893.
  8. Gerzina HA, Stovsky E. Standardized patient assessments in medical education: A review of effectiveness and implementation strategies. Clin Simul Nurs. 2023;75:24-32.
  9. Hiller M, Bleakley A, Ahmed N, Nestel D. Simulation-based education using standardized patients: Current practices and future directions. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023;14:89-101.
  10. Lewis KL, Bohnert CA, Gammon WL, Hölzer H, Lyman L, Smith C, et al. The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP). Adv Simul (Lond). 2017;2:10.
  11. McGraw RC, O’Connor HM. Standardized patients in early clinical skills acquisition: A study from Queen’s University. Med Educ. 1999;33(8):572-8.
  12. Gonullu I, Kaya A, Karaman K. Development and validation of a standardized patient performance rating scale for medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):112.
  13. Zerilli T, Holbrook A, Hall R, Bhanot P. Evaluating professional standardized patient encounters in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2023;87(4):7328.
  14. Haruta J, Masuda K, Otsuka R, Tanabe M. Development of a standardized patient assessment tool for medical students: An eight-year validation study. Med Educ Online. 2024;29(1):2103401.
  15. Sweller J, van Merriënboer JJ, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;31:261-92.
  16. Stefaniak JE. Needs assessment for instructional design: Identifying gaps and prioritizing learning needs. New York: Springer; 2021.
  17. Jackson JM, Kuhn GJ, Plummer LN, Engstrom C. Using standardized patients to teach integrated virology and clinical skills: A novel educational approach. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:57-67.
  18. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies: a practical manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991.
  19. Wongwanich S. Techniques for ranking data from needs assessment in medical education. J Med Educ. 2019;23(2):134-47.
  20. Sweller J. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science. 1988;12(2):257–85.
  21. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018.
  22. Archer TM. Response Rates to Expect from Web-Based Surveys and What to Do About It [Internet]. 2008 [Updated 5 June 2008]. Available from: https://archives.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php.
  23. Nagai H, Nakazawa E, Akabayashi A. The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study. Monash Bioeth. 2022;40:157-70.
  24. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.
  25. Frank JR, Snell LS, Sherbino J, editors. CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015.
  26. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency: Curriculum Developers’ Guide. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2014.
  27. Reger GM, Norr AM, Rizzo AS, Sylvers P, Peltan J, Fischer D, et al. Virtual Standardized Patients vs Academic Training for Learning Motivational Interviewing Skills in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Military: A Randomized Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2017722.
  28. Barrows HS. An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Acad Med. 1993;68(6):443–51.
  29. Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The Consultation: An Approach to Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 654
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 205


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب