Taking standardized patient-based examinations to the next level

被引:36
作者
Petrusa, ER [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1207/s15328015tlm1601_19
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to summarize this author's view on "where we are" with standardized patient-based assessments of clinical performance and to offer three directions for further research and development. Summary: The push for more objective outcome data has fueled proliferation of the most researched innovation in the history of medical education. Near-random clinical experiences of students do not provide consistent, repeated practice with important clinical cases to achieve minimally adequate performance on these objective performance examinations, leading to scoring "psychogymnastics" to titrate fail rates. The second area is to modify these examinations to reflect features at higher levels of professional development such as situational awareness. Theories of professional development should guide changes. The third area incorporates multiperson scenarios; a clinician with a family or a team in the operating room. Simulation of complex situations, especially those requiring rapid, accurate communication and action can reduce medical errors and improve patient safety. Conclusions: Standardized patient-based examinations provide objective outcome data but require artificial adjustments in scoring due to inconsistent learning opportunities. Theoretical research on professional development, acquisition of expertise and team functioning provides fertile, new directions to take standardized patient-based examinations to the next level. Copyright (C) 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:98 / 110
页数:13
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   COMPARING STUDENTS FEEDBACK ABOUT CLINICAL INSTRUCTION WITH THEIR PERFORMANCES [J].
ANDERSON, DC ;
HARRIS, IB ;
ALLEN, S ;
SATRAN, L ;
BLAND, CJ ;
DAVISFEICKERT, JA ;
POLAND, GA ;
MILLER, WJ .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1991, 66 (01) :29-34
[2]   Situation awareness and co-operation within and between hierarchical units in dynamic decision making [J].
Artman, H .
ERGONOMICS, 1999, 42 (11) :1404-1417
[3]  
BARROWS HS, 1987, J MED EDUC, V62, P805
[4]   SEMANTIC STRUCTURES AND DIAGNOSTIC THINKING OF EXPERTS AND NOVICES [J].
BORDAGE, G ;
LEMIEUX, M .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1991, 66 (09) :S70-S72
[5]   Assessing the semantic content of clinical case presentations: Studies of reliability and concurrent validity [J].
Bordage, G ;
Connell, KJ ;
Chang, RW ;
Gecht, MR ;
Sinacore, JM .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1997, 72 (10) :S37-S39
[6]   ELABORATED KNOWLEDGE - A KEY TO SUCCESSFUL DIAGNOSTIC THINKING [J].
BORDAGE, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1994, 69 (11) :883-885
[7]   Why did I miss the diagnosis? Some cognitive explanations and educational implications [J].
Bordage, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1999, 74 (10) :S138-S143
[8]   Using a standardized family to teach clinical skills to medical students [J].
Clay, MC ;
Lane, H ;
Willis, SE ;
Peal, M ;
Chakravarthi, S ;
Poehlman, G .
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN MEDICINE, 2000, 12 (03) :145-149
[9]   VALIDITY AND GENERALIZABILITY OF GLOBAL RATINGS IN AN OBJECTIVE STRUCTURED CLINICAL EXAMINATION [J].
COHEN, R ;
ROTHMAN, AI ;
POLDRE, P ;
ROSS, J .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1991, 66 (09) :545-548
[10]   TECHNICAL ISSUES - TEST APPLICATION [J].
COLLIVER, JA ;
WILLIAMS, RG .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1993, 68 (06) :454-460