Überblick über Patientensimulationsprogramme - Hintergründe, Möglichkeiten und Einsatz in der Lehre

Using Foreign Virtual Patients With Medical Students in Germany: Are Cultural Differences Evident and Do They Impede Learning?

Background

Learning with virtual patients (VPs) is considered useful in medical education for fostering clinical reasoning. As the authoring of VPs is highly demanding, an international exchange of cases might be desirable. However, cultural differences in foreign VPs might hamper learning success.

Objective

We investigated the need for support for using VPs from the United States at a German university, with respect to language and cultural differences. Our goal was to better understand potential implementation barriers of a intercultural VP exchange.

Methods

Two VPs were presented to 30 German medical students featuring a cultural background different from German standards with respect to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, ethical aspects, role models, and language (as identified by a cultural adaptation framework). Participants were assigned to two groups: 14 students were advised to complete the cases without further instructions (basic group), and 16 students received written explanatory supplemental information specifically with regard to cultural differences (supplement group). Using a 6-point scale (6=strongly agree), we analyzed the results of an integrated assessment of learning success as well as an evaluation of cases by the students on usefulness for learning and potential issues regarding the language and cultural background.

Results

The German students found it motivating to work with cases written in English (6-point scale, 4.5 points). The clinical relevance of the VPs was clearly recognized (6 points), and the foreign language was considered a minor problem in this context (3 points). The results of the integrated learning assessment were similar in both groups (basic 53% [SD 4] vs supplement 52% [SD 4] correct answers, P=.32). However, students using the supplemental material more readily realized culturally different diagnostic and therapeutic strategies (basic 4 vs supplement 5 points, P=.39) and were less affirmative when asked about the transferability of cases to a German context (basic 5 vs supplement 3 points, P=.048).

Conclusions

German students found English VPs to be highly clinically relevant, and they rated language problems much lower than they rated motivation to work on cases in English. This should encourage the intercultural exchange of VPs. The provision of supplemental explanatory material facilitates the recognition of cultural differences and might help prevent unexpected learning effects.

[Blended-learning in psychosomatics and psychotherapy - Increasing the satisfaction and knowledge of students with a web-based e-learning tool]

OBJECTIVES

To improve the synergy of established methods of teaching, the Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Münster, developed a web-based elearning tool using video clips of standardized patients. The effect of this blended-learning approach was evaluated.

METHODS

A multiple-choice test was performed by a naive (without the e-learning tool) and an experimental (with the tool) cohort of medical students to test the groups' expertise in psychosomatics. In addition, participants' satisfaction with the new tool was evaluated (numeric rating scale of 0-10).

RESULTS

The experimental cohort was more satisfied with the curriculum and more interested in psychosomatics. Furthermore, the experimental cohort scored significantly better in the multiple-choice test.

CONCLUSION

The new tool proved to be an important addition to the classical curriculum as a blended-learning approach which improves students' satisfaction and knowledge in psychosomatics.

Virtual patients for assessing medical students--important aspects when considering the introduction of a new assessment format

BACKGROUND

A case-based online assessment tool has been accomplished at the University of Ulm by simulating consultations with virtual patients in General Practice setting. After a successful pilot study, more data on validity were needed as one important step when considering introducing this assessment format to replace the regular written course exam.

METHODS

Five distinct sources of validity evidence are addressed: content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables and consequences. An examination simulation was conducted including all students (147) of the General Practice course, scores of three virtual patient cases compared with the written course exam and data gathered regarding usability, acceptance, content and structural characteristics, and consequences.

RESULTS

All five aspects were supported by collected data. Correlation to the written exam was moderate with r = 0.36, correlation between the cases higher with r = 0.50-0.56.

CONCLUSION

Although a direct comparison of written course exams and dealing with virtual patients is difficult in many aspects and the study setting as an exam simulation caused confounders, this new assessment format is supported by many aspects of validity evidence. Solving virtual clinical scenarios addresses other abilities, skills and knowledge than traditional written exams and since "assessment drives learning" it could have positive implications on teaching and learning alike.