Advancing virtual patient simulations through design research and interPLAY: part II—integration and field test

In Part I of this two-part series, we examined the design and development of NERVE: A virtual patient simulation created to give medical students standardized experiences in interviewing, examining, and diagnosing virtual patients with cranial nerve disorders. We illustrated key design features and discussed how design-based research studies improved the total learning experience, including the virtual patient (VP) simulations and the instructional features incorporated with the simulations. In Part II, we examine the efficacy of NERVE and the strategy used to integrate the system into the medical school curriculum by field-testing it with 119 s-year medical students, and measuring students’ use, reactions, learning, and transfer. We report findings and reflect on lessons learned from the field-test to posit recommendations for improvement and guide the future research and development of virtual patient simulations.

[1]  I. Lundberg,et al.  Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study , 2011, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[2]  Mihaela Botezatu,et al.  As time goes by: Stakeholder opinions on the implementation and use of a virtual patient simulation system , 2010, Medical teacher.

[3]  Samuel Lapkin,et al.  The effectiveness of debriefing in simulation‐based learning for health professionals: A systematic review , 2012, JBI library of systematic reviews.

[4]  M Bauch,et al.  Challenges and perspectives of computer-assisted instruction in medical education: lessons learned from seven years of experience with the CAMPUS system. , 2007, Methods of information in medicine.

[5]  Andrea Gregg,et al.  Learning From Doing: Lessons Learned From Designing and Developing an Educational Software Within a Heterogeneous Group , 2021, Int. J. Web Based Learn. Teach. Technol..

[6]  Brent Rossen,et al.  High Score! - Motivation Strategies for User Participation in Virtual Human Development , 2010, IVA.

[7]  Samuel Edelbring A Threefold Framework for Relating to Innovations and Technology in Education: Learning from, with and about Technology , 2010 .

[8]  Fabrizio Consorti,et al.  Efficacy of virtual patients in medical education: A meta-analysis of randomized studies , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[9]  A. Ziv,et al.  Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review , 2005, Medical teacher.

[10]  Nick Sevdalis,et al.  Identifying best practice guidelines for debriefing in surgery: a tri-continental study. , 2012, American journal of surgery.

[11]  Donald L. Kirkpatrick,et al.  Evaluating Training Programs : The Four Levels , 2009 .

[12]  Kyle Johnsen,et al.  Advancing virtual patient simulations through design research and interPLAY: part I: design and development , 2016, Educational Technology Research and Development.

[13]  J. Keller Motivational Design for Learning and Performance , 2010 .

[14]  Sören Huwendiek,et al.  Virtual patient design and curricular integration evaluation toolkit , 2010, Medical education.

[15]  D. Kolb Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[16]  Sören Huwendiek,et al.  Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students , 2009, Medical education.

[17]  D. Cook,et al.  Computerized Virtual Patients in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2010, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[18]  D. Cook,et al.  Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps , 2009, Medical education.

[19]  Sonal Arora,et al.  Debriefing 101: training faculty to promote learning in simulation-based training. , 2015, American journal of surgery.

[20]  R. Glavin,et al.  Low‐ to high‐fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? , 2003, Medical education.

[21]  Uno Fors,et al.  Integrating virtual patients into courses: follow‐up seminars and perceived benefit , 2012, Medical education.

[22]  J. Dewey Logic, the theory of inquiry , 1938 .

[23]  David A Cook,et al.  How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta‐analysis of outcomes of simulation‐based education , 2014, Medical education.

[24]  Lynn Foster-Johnson,et al.  Integration Strategies for Using Virtual Patients in Clinical Clerkships , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[25]  Martin R. Fischer,et al.  Virtuelle Patienten in der medizinischen Ausbildung: Vergleich verschiedener Strategien zur curricularen Integration , 2008 .

[26]  LeeAnn Lindsey,et al.  Experiential Approach to Instruction , 2009 .

[27]  Benjamin Lok,et al.  The use of virtual patients in medical school curricula. , 2012, Advances in physiology education.

[28]  J. Keller Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach , 2009 .

[29]  J. Keller Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design , 1987 .

[30]  Sören Huwendiek,et al.  Learner preferences regarding integrating, sequencing and aligning virtual patients with other activities in the undergraduate medical curriculum: A focus group study , 2013, Medical teacher.

[31]  W. McGaghie,et al.  A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009 , 2010, Medical education.

[32]  J. Barsuk,et al.  Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence , 2011, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.