Virtual Patients vs Standardized Patients in Medical Education - from the Perspectives of Clinical Teachers

10.6145/jme.202212_26(4).0004

Chia-Hung Chen；Feng-Cheng Liu；Zi-Xiang Xu；Fu-Hsiung Su；Tsuen-Chiuan Tsai

standardized patients ； virtual patients ； clinical reasoning ； clinical competency

Journal of Medical Education

26卷4期（2022 / 12 / 01）

44 - 56

英文

Patient encounters have been highlighted important for learning clinical skills. Virtual patients and standardized patients have been widely used as supplement models in medical education. Purpose: This study aims to first compare the effectiveness of using SPs and VPs from the perspectives of clinical teachers and secondly to suggest the smart choice based on the educational objectives. Methods: A questionnaire-assisted interview was conducted to gather feedback from teachers based on their experience with VPs and SPs in clinical teaching. The items for VP/SP comparison include: clinical reasoning, history taking, physical examination, procedural skills, communication, conceptualization, range of case varieties, authentic environment, interest, saving/convenience, safety/repeatability, and expenditure. The definition of each iterm was first provided to introduce teachers' text response, followed by an interview for clarification. Teachers also voted for the superiority between VP/SP, and finally suggested the choices for teaching modalities. Results: Both VP/SP had pros and cons when applied in clinical education. VPs performed better in arousing self-directed learning and clinical reasoning, providing a safe/repeatable environment and increasing case number and varieties. Using VPs is cost/time/manpower-saving for a large group, while using SPs is saving more in a small group. SPs are superior in teaching communication and personal skills. Both SPs and VPs are appropriate for objective structured clinical examination, while being unsatisfied for procedural skill and physical examination. Conclusions: Both VP and SP have their pros and cons regarding the effectiveness in clinical education, and the key of teaching success is to smartly choose between VPs and SPs.

1. Fink MC, Reitmeier V, Stadler M, et al.: Assessment of diagnostic competences with Standardized patients versus virtual patients: Experimental study in the context of history taking. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23(3): e21196. DOI: 10.2196/21196
   連結：
2. Furlan R, Gatti M, Menè R, et al.: A natural language processing-based virtual patient simulator and intelligent tutoring system for the clinical diagnostic process: Simulator development and case study. JMIR Med Inform. 2021; 9(4): e24073. DOI: 10.2196/24073
   連結：
3. Wang SY, Chen CH, Tsai TC: Learning clinical reasoning with virtual patients. Med Educ 2020; 54(5): 481. DOI: 10.1111/medu.14082
   連結：
4. Gruppen LD: Clinical reasoning: Defining it, teaching it, assessing it, studying it. West J Emerg Med 2017; 18(1): 4-7. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2016.11.33191
   連結：
5. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM: Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010; 85(10): 1589-602. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13
   連結：
6. May W, Park JH, Lee JP: A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996-2005. Med Teach 2009; 31(6): 487-92. DOI: 10.1080/01421590802530898
   連結：
7. Lee J, Kim H, Kim KH, et al.: Effective virtual patient simulators for medical communication training: A systematic review. Med Educ 2020; 54(9): 786-95. DOI: 10.1111/medu.14152
   連結：
8. O'Rourke SR, Branford KR, Brooks TL, et al.: The emotional and behavioral impact of delivering bad news to virtual versus real standardized patients: A pilot study. Teach Learn Med 2020; 32(2): 139-49. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2019.1652180
   連結：
9. Kotranza A, Lok B, Deladisma A, et al.: Mixed reality humans: Evaluating behavior, usability, and acceptability. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 2009; 15(3): 369–82. DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2008.195
   連結：
10. Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, et al.: Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22(8): e16504. DOI: 10.2196/16504
    連結：
11. Kononowicz AA, Woodham LA, Edelbring S, et al.: Virtual patient simulations in health professions education: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21(7): e14676. DOI: 10.2196/14676
    連結：
12. Innova Medical Technology Corporation: V-DxM is for training and assessing clinical reasoning. Retrieved from https://www.ennovamed.com/prdvps?langu=en. Accessed 1 October 2022.