The Library

Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience : a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study

Tools

Bateman, James, Allen, Maggie E., Kidd, Jane M., Parsons, Nicholas R. and Davies, D. A. (David A.). (2012) Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience : a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study. BMC Medical Education, Vol.12 (No.1). p. 62. ISSN 1472-6920

Preview

Text
WRAP_Parsons_1472-6920-12-62.pdf - Published Version
Download (379Kb) | Preview

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-62

Abstract

Background
Virtual Patients (VPs) are web-based representations of realistic clinical cases. They are proposed as being an optimal method for teaching clinical reasoning skills. International standards exist which define precisely what constitutes a VP. There are multiple design possibilities for VPs, however there is little formal evidence to support individual design features. The purpose of this trial is to explore the effect of two different potentially important design features on clinical reasoning skills and the student experience. These are the branching case pathways (present or absent) and structured clinical reasoning feedback (present or absent).

Methods/Design
This is a multi-centre randomised 2x2 factorial design study evaluating two independent variables of VP design, branching (present or absent), and structured clinical reasoning feedback (present or absent).The study will be carried out in medical student volunteers in one year group from three university medical schools in the United Kingdom, Warwick, Keele and Birmingham. There are four core musculoskeletal topics. Each case can be designed in four different ways, equating to 16 VPs required for the research. Students will be randomised to four groups, completing the four VP topics in the same order, but with each group exposed to a different VP design sequentially. All students will be exposed to the four designs. Primary outcomes are performance for each case design in a standardized fifteen item clinical reasoning assessment, integrated into each VP, which is identical for each topic. Additionally a 15-item self-reported evaluation is completed for each VP, based on a widely used EViP tool. Student patterns of use of the VPs will be recorded.

In one centre, formative clinical and examination performance will be recorded, along with a self reported pre and post-intervention reasoning score, the DTI. Our power calculations indicate a sample size of 112 is required for both primary outcomes.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB2300 Higher Education
R Medicine > R Medicine (General)

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Medical logic -- Study and teaching, Computer-assisted instruction, Clinical medicine -- Computer programs

Journal or Publication Title:

BMC Medical Education

Publisher:

BioMed Central Ltd.

ISSN:

1472-6920

Official Date:

2012

Dates:

Date	Event
2012	Published

Volume:

Vol.12

Number:

No.1

Page Range:

p. 62

Identification Number:

10.1186/1472-6920-12-62

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

Arthritis Research UK

Grant number:

207711 (ARUK)

References:

1. Ellaway RH, Poulton T, Smothers V, Greene P: Virtual patients come of age.
Med Teach 2009, 31(8):683–684.
2. Cook DA, Triola MM: Virtual patients: a critical literature review and
proposed next steps. Medical Education 2009, 43(4):303–311.
3. 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.
4. Huang G, Reynolds R, Candler C: Virtual patient simulation at US and
Canadian medical schools. Acad Med 2007, 82(5):446–451.
5. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM:
Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. Jama
2008, 300(10):1181–1196.
6. Ruderich F, Bauch M, Haag M, Heid J, Leven FJ, Singer R, Geiss HK, Junger J,
Tonshoff B: CAMPUS–a flexible, interactive system for web-based,
problem-based learning in health care. Studies in health technology and
informatics 2004, 107(Pt 2):921–925.
7. Begg M: Virtual patients: practical advice for clinical authors using
Labyrinth. Clin Teach 2010, 7(3):202–205.
8. Zary N, Johnson G, Boberg J, Fors UG: Development, implementation and
pilot evaluation of a Web-based Virtual Patient Case Simulation
environment–Web-SP. BMC medical education 2006, 6:10.
9. McGee JB, Neill J, Goldman L, Casey E: Using multimedia virtual patients
to enhance the clinical curriculum for medical students. Studies in health
technology and informatics 1998, 52(Pt 2):732–735.
10. Wilson AS, Goodall JE, Ambrosini G, Carruthers DM, Chan H, Ong SG,
Gordon C, Young SP: Development of an interactive learning tool for
teaching rheumatology–a simulated clinical case studies program.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006, 45(9):1158–1161.
11. Friedman CP, France CL, Drossman DD: A randomized comparison of
alternative formats for clinical simulations. Med Decis Making 1991, 11
(4):265–272.
12. MedBiquitous Virtual Patient Player Specifications and Description Document
V.1.0: http://www.medbiq.org/working_groups/virtual_patient/
VirtualPatientPlayerSpecification.pdf.
13. Ellaway R, Poulton T, Fors U, McGee JB, Albright S: Building a virtual
patient commons. Med Teach 2008, 30(2):170–174.
14. Ellaway RH, Davies D: Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient
activities. Med Teach 2011, 33(4):303–310.
15. Smothers V, Ellaway R, Balasubramaniam C: eViP: sharing virtual patients
across Europe. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium
AMIA Symposium 2008, 1140.
16. Bateman J, Davies D: Virtual patients: are we in a new era? Acad Med
2011, 86(2):151. author reply 151.
17. Triola MM, Campion N, McGee JB, Albright S, Greene P, Smothers V, Ellaway
R: An XML standard for virtual patients: exchanging case-based
simulations in medical education. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings /
AMIA Symposium AMIA Symposium 2007, 2007:741–745.
18. Huwendiek S, De leng BA, Zary N, Fischer MR, Ruiz JG, Ellaway R: Towards a
typology of virtual patients. Med Teach 2009, 31(8):743–748.
19. Bateman J, Davies D, Allen M: Mind wandering has an impact in
electronic teaching cases. Medical Education 2012, 46(2):235.
20. Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G: Using SNAPPS to facilitate the expression
of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: a randomized comparison group
trial. Acad Med 2009, 84(4):517–524.
21. Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G: Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two
hours. J Exp Psychol Gen 2001, 130(3):380–400.
22. Page G, Bordage G, Allen T: Developing key-feature problems and
examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med 1995, 70
(3):194–201.
23. Bordage G, Brailovsky C, Carretier H, Page G: Content validation of key
features on a national examination of clinical decision-making skills.
Acad Med 1995, 70(4):276–281.
24. Bordage G, Grant J, Marsden P: Quantitative assessment of diagnostic
ability. Medical Education 1990, 24(5):413–425.
25. Round AP: Teaching clinical reasoning–a preliminary controlled study.
Medical Education 1999, 33(7):480–483.
26. Sumner W 2ND, Hagen MD: Value of information in virtual patient
performance evaluations. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA
Symposium AMIA Symposium 2008, 1149.
27. Badcock LJ, Raj N, Gadsby K, Deighton CM: Meeting the needs of
increasing numbers of medical students–a best practise approach.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006, 45(7):799–803.
28. Adebajo A, Windsor K, Hassell A, Dacre J: Undergraduate education in
rheumatology. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005, 44(9):1202–1203.
author reply 1203.
29. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/-secorigin-
goals.
30. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised
recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group
randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001, 1:2.
31. Norman GR, Eva KW: Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Medical
Education 2010, 44(1):94–100.
32. Fischer MR, Kopp V, Holzer M, Ruderich F, Junger J: A modified electronic
key feature examination for undergraduate medical students: validation
threats and opportunities. Med Teach 2005, 27(5):450–455.
33. Montgomery AA, Peters TJ, Little P: Design, analysis and presentation of
factorial randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:26.
34. Berman N, Fall LH, Smith S, Levine DA, Maloney CG, Potts M, Siegel B,
Foster-Johnson L: Integration strategies for using virtual patients in
clinical clerkships. Acad Med 2009, 84(7):942–949.
35. Botezatu M, Hult H, Fors UG: Virtual patient simulation: what do students
make of it? A focus group study. BMC medical education 2010, 10:91.
36. Zary N, Johnson G, Fors U: Web-based virtual patients in dentistry: factors
influencing the use of cases in the Web-SP system. Eur J Dent Educ 2009,
13(1):2–9.
37. Wilbanks J: Another reason for opening access to research. Bmj 2006, 333
(7582):1306–1308.