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

BackgroundVirtual 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/DesignThis 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.DiscussionThis trial will provide robust evidence to support the effectiveness of different designs of virtual patients, based on student performance and evaluation. The cases and all learning materials will be open access and available on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike license.

[1]  Alan A Montgomery,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Open Access Design, Analysis and Presentation of Factorial Randomised Controlled Trials , 2022 .

[2]  James B. McGee,et al.  An XML Standard for Virtual Patients: Exchanging Case-Based Simulations in Medical Education , 2007, AMIA.

[3]  Sumner W nd Value of information in virtual patient performance evaluations. , 2008 .

[4]  N Zary,et al.  Web-based virtual patients in dentistry: factors influencing the use of cases in the Web-SP system. , 2009, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[5]  Uno Fors,et al.  Building a virtual patient commons , 2008, Medical teacher.

[6]  A. Round Teaching clinical reasoning – a preliminary controlled study , 1999, Medical education.

[7]  D. Davies,et al.  Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient activities , 2011, Medical teacher.

[9]  John Wilbanks Another reason for opening access to research , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  Extensible markup language , 1997 .

[11]  Chris Candler,et al.  Virtual Patient Simulation at U.S. and Canadian Medical Schools , 2007, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[12]  D. Cook,et al.  Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. , 2008, JAMA.

[13]  G Bordage,et al.  Content validation of key features on a national examination of clinical decision‐making skills , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[14]  Burkhard Tönshoff,et al.  CAMPUS - A Flexible, Interactive System for Web-Based, Problem-Based Learning in Health Care , 2004, MedInfo.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[16]  C. M. Sperberg-McQueen,et al.  Extensible Markup Language (XML) , 1997, World Wide Web J..

[17]  James Bateman,et al.  Virtual patients: are we in a new era? , 2011, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[18]  C. Deighton,et al.  Meeting the needs of increasing numbers of medical students--a best practise approach. , 2006, Rheumatology.

[19]  Michael Begg Virtual patients: practical advice for clinical authors using Labyrinth , 2010, The clinical teacher.

[20]  Chara Balasubramaniam,et al.  eViP: sharing virtual patients across Europe. , 2008, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[22]  Leon Goldman,et al.  Using Multimedia Virtual Patients to Enhance the Clinical Curriculum for Medical Students , 1998, MedInfo.

[23]  Nabil Zary,et al.  Towards a typology of virtual patients , 2009, Medical teacher.

[24]  Matthias Holzer,et al.  A modified electronic key feature examination for undergraduate medical students: validation threats and opportunities , 2005, Medical teacher.

[25]  Terry Poulton,et al.  Virtual patients come of age , 2009, Medical teacher.

[26]  K. Eva,et al.  Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning , 2010, Medical education.

[27]  G Bordage,et al.  Developing key‐feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision‐making skills , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[28]  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.

[29]  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.

[30]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  U. Fors,et al.  Virtual patient simulation: what do students make of it? A focus group study , 2010, BMC medical education.

[32]  C P Friedman,et al.  A Randomized Comparison of Alternative Formats for Clinical Simulations , 1989, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  Nabil Zary,et al.  Development, implementation and pilot evaluation of a Web-based Virtual Patient Case Simulation environment – Web-SP , 2006, BMC medical education.

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

[35]  G. Bordage,et al.  Using SNAPPS to Facilitate the Expression of Clinical Reasoning and Uncertainties: A Randomized Comparison Group Trial , 2009, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[36]  G. Bordage,et al.  Quantitative assessment of diagnostic ability , 1990, Medical education.

[37]  C Gordon,et al.  Development of an interactive learning tool for teaching rheumatology--a simulated clinical case studies program. , 2006, Rheumatology.