Practicing medicine without risk: Students' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation

被引:210
作者
Gordon, JA
Wilkerson, WM
Shaffer, DW
Armstrong, EG
机构
[1] Partners HealthCare Syst, Ctr Med Simulat, Boston, MA USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Macy Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Hlth Syst, Med Readiness Trainer Team, Dept Emergency Med,Med Educ Scholars Program, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[4] Harvard Univ, Grad Sch Educ, Technol Educ Program, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[5] Ctr Integrat Med & Innovat Technol, Boston, MA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00001888-200105000-00019
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose. To understand the responses of medical students and educators to high-fidelity patient simulation, a new technology allowing "practice without risk." Method. Pilot groups of students (n = 27) and educators (n = 33) were exposed to a simulator session, then surveyed with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Open-ended comments were transcribed and coded. They were analyzed for recurring themes and tested for interrater agreement. An independent focus group subsequently performed higher-level thematic analysis. Results. Overall, 85% of the students rated the session excellent and 85% of the educators rated it excellent or very good. Over 80% of both groups thought that simulator-based training should be required for all medical students. Analytic categories derived from written comments were: Overall Assessment (i.e., "generally good experience"); Process Descriptors (i.e., "very realistic"); Teaching Utility (i.e., "broad educational tool"); Pedagogic Efficacy (i.e., "promotes critical thinking"); and Goals for Future Use (i.e., "more practice sessions"). Thirty percent of students and 38% of educators were impressed by the realism of the simulator, and they (37% and 25%, respectively) identified the ability to "practice" medicine as the primary advantage of simulation The focus group rated cost as the major current disadvantage (66%). Conclusions. Students' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation were very positive. The ability to practice without risk must be weighed against the cost of this new technology.
引用
收藏
页码:469 / 472
页数:4
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]  
DEWEY J, 1994, TEACHING CASE METHOD
[2]  
Gaba D., 1994, ANESTHESIA CRISIS RE
[3]  
Geertz C., 2000, The interpretation of cultures
[4]  
Glesne C., 1992, Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction
[5]  
Gordon J A, 2000, Acad Med, V75, P522, DOI 10.1097/00001888-200005000-00043
[6]   UNDERSTANDING AND VALIDITY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH [J].
MAXWELL, JA .
HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 1992, 62 (03) :279-300
[7]  
McGuire CH, 1999, INNOVATIVE SIMULATIO, P3
[8]  
*MED READ TRAIN TE, 1999, MED READ TRAIN ED TR
[9]  
ROLFE JM, 1986, SIMULATION
[10]  
Schon D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner