The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP).

In this paper, we define the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) for those working with human role players who interact with learners in a wide range of experiential learning and assessment contexts. These human role players are variously described by such terms as standardized/simulated patients or simulated participants (SP or SPs). ASPE is a global organization whose mission is to share advances in SP-based pedagogy, assessment, research, and scholarship as well as support the professional development of its members. The SOBP are intended to be used in conjunction with the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM, which address broader simulation practices. We begin by providing a rationale for the creation of the ASPE SOBP, noting that with the increasing use of simulation in healthcare training, it is incumbent on ASPE to establish SOBP that ensure the growth, integrity, and safe application of SP-based educational endeavors. We then describe the three and a half year process through which these standards were developed by a consensus of international experts in the field. Key terms used throughout the document are defined. Five underlying values inform the SOBP: safety, quality, professionalism, accountability, and collaboration. Finally, we describe five domains of best practice: safe work environment; case development; SP training for role portrayal, feedback, and completion of assessment instruments; program management; and professional development. Each domain is divided into principles with accompanying key practices that provide clear and practical guidelines for achieving desired outcomes and creating simulations that are safe for all stakeholders. Failure to follow the ASPE SOBP could compromise the safety of participants and the effectiveness of a simulation session. Care has been taken to make these guidelines precise yet flexible enough to address the diversity of varying contexts of SP practice. As a living document, these SOBP will be reviewed and modified periodically under the direction of the ASPE Standards of Practice Committee as SP methodology grows and adapts to evolving simulation practices.

Using a computer simulation for teaching communication skills: A blinded multisite mixed methods randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess advanced communication skills among second-year medical students exposed either to a computer simulation (MPathic-VR) featuring virtual humans, or to a multimedia computer-based learning module, and to understand each group's experiences and learning preferences. METHODS: A single-blinded, mixed methods, randomized, multisite trial compared MPathic-VR (N=210) to computer-based learning (N=211). Primary outcomes: communication scores during repeat interactions with MPathic-VR's intercultural and interprofessional communication scenarios and scores on a subsequent advanced communication skills objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: student attitude surveys and qualitative assessments of their experiences with MPathic-VR or computer-based learning. RESULTS: MPathic-VR-trained students improved their intercultural and interprofessional communication performance between their first and second interactions with each scenario. They also achieved significantly higher composite scores on the OSCE than computer-based learning-trained students. Attitudes and experiences were more positive among students trained with MPathic-VR, who valued its providing immediate feedback, teaching nonverbal communication skills, and preparing them for emotion-charged patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: MPathic-VR was effective in training advanced communication skills and in enabling knowledge transfer into a more realistic clinical situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: MPathic-VR's virtual human simulation offers an effective and engaging means of advanced communication training.

Standardized Patient Encounters: Periodic Versus Postencounter Evaluation of Nontechnical Clinical Performance.

INTRODUCTION: Standardized patients are a beneficial component of modern healthcare education and training, but few studies have explored cognitive factors potentially impacting clinical skills assessment during standardized patient encounters. This study examined the impact of a periodic (vs. traditional postencounter) evaluation approach and the appearance of critical verbal and nonverbal behaviors throughout a standardized patient encounter on scoring accuracy in a video-based scenario. METHODS: Forty-nine standardized patients scored either periodically or at only 1 point in time (postencounter) a healthcare provider's verbal and nonverbal clinical performance during a videotaped standardized patient encounter. The healthcare provider portrayed in this study was actually a standardized patient delivering carefully scripted verbal and nonverbal behaviors in their portrayal of an actual physician. The encounter itself was subdivided into 3 distinct segments for the purpose of supporting periodic evaluation, with the expectation that both verbal and nonverbal cues occurring in the middle segment would be more challenging to accurately report for participants in the postscenario evaluation group as a result of working memory decay. RESULTS: Periodic evaluators correctly identified a significantly greater number of critical verbal cues midscenario than postencounter evaluators (P < 0.01) and correctly identified a significantly greater number of critical nonverbal cues than their postscenario counterparts across all 3 scenario segments (P < 0.001). Further, postscenario evaluations exhibited a performance decrement in terms of midscenario correct identifications that periodic evaluators did not (P < 0.01). Also, periodic evaluators exhibited fewer verbal cue false-positives during the first segment of the scenario than postscenario evaluators (P < 0.001), but this effect did not extend to other segments regardless of the cue type (ie, verbal or nonverbal). DISCUSSION: Pausing lengthier standardized patient encounters periodically to allow for more frequent scoring may result in better reporting accuracy for certain clinical behavioral cues. This could enable educators to provide more specific formative feedback to individual learners at the session's conclusion. The most effective encounter design will ultimately depend on the specific goals and training objectives of the exercise itself.

The cognitive demands of standardized patients: understanding limitations in attention and working memory with the decoding of nonverbal behavior during improvisations.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to look at the challenges of standardized patients while in role and to use the findings to enhance training methods. The study investigated the effect of improvisations and multiple-task performance on the ability of standardized patients to observe and evaluate another's communication behaviors and its associated mental workload. METHOD: Twenty standardized patients participated in a 2 types of interview (with and without improvisations)-by-2 types of observation (passive and active) within-groups design. RESULTS: The results indicated that both active observations and improvisations had a negative effect on the standardized patients' ability to observe the learner, missing more than 75% of nonverbal behaviors during active improvisational encounters. Moreover, standardized patients experienced the highest mental demand during active improvisational encounters. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the need to simultaneously portray a character and assess a learner may negatively affect the ability of standardized patients to provide accurate evaluations of a learner, particularly when they are required to improvise responses, underscoring the need for specific and targeted training.

Characteristics of simulation activities at North American medical schools and teaching hospitals: an AAMC-SSH-ASPE-AACN collaboration.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: In September 2011, the Association of American Medical Colleges released the results of a survey conducted in 2010 on simulation activities at its member medical schools and teaching hospitals. In this commentary, we offer a synthesis of data and conclude that (1) simulation is used broadly at Association of American Medical Colleges member institutions, for many types of learners, including other health care professionals; (2) it addresses core training competencies and has many educational purposes; (3) its use in learner assessment is more prevalent at medical schools but is still significant at teaching hospitals; and (4) it requires a considerable investment of money, space, personnel, and time. These data confirm general perceptions about the state of simulation in North America for physician training. Future endeavors should include a more granular examination of how simulation is integrated into curricula, a similar survey of other health care-related institutions and professions, and a periodic assessment to characterize trends over time.

The advantages and challenges of unannounced standardized patient methodology to assess healthcare communication.

OBJECTIVE: This paper provides an overview of the implementation of using unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to conduct health communication research in clinical settings. METHODS: Certain types of health communication situations are difficult to capture because of their rarity or unpredictable nature. In primary care the real reasons for a visit are frequently unknown until the consultation is well under way. Therefore, it is logistically difficult for communication studies to capture many real-time communications between patients and their physicians. Although the USP methodology is ideal for capturing these communication behaviors, challenges to using this method include developing collaborative relationships with clinical practices, logistical issues such as safeguarding the identity of the USP, training USPs and creating their identities, maintaining fidelity to the role, and analyzing the resultant data. RESULTS: This paper discusses the challenges and solutions to USP implementation. We provide an example of how to implement a USP study using an on-going study being conducted in primary care practices. CONCLUSION: This paper explores the advantages and challenges as well as strategies to overcome obstacles to implementing a USP study. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Despite the challenges, USP methodology can contribute much to our understanding of health communication and practice.

Standardized patient practices: initial report on the survey of US and Canadian medical schools.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of information about the ways in which standardized patients (SPs) are used, how programs that facilitate their use are operated, the ways in which SP-based performance assessments are developed, and how assessment quality is assured. This survey research project was undertaken to describe the current practices of programs delivering SP-based instruction and/or assessment. METHOD: A structured interview of 61 individual SP programs affiliated with the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) was conducted over a 7-month period. A web-based data entry system was used by the 11 trained interviewers. RESULTS: The two most common reported uses of SPs were learner performance assessment (88% of respondents) and small-group instruction (84% of respondents). Fifty-four percent of programs hired 51-100 SPs annually and paid an average of $15 and $16 per hour for training time and portraying a case, respectively. The average reported number of permanent program employees, excluding SPs and temporary staff, was 4.8 (sd = 3.6). The most frequently reported salary range was $30,001-$45,000. CONCLUSION: We intend for these preliminary results to inform the medical education community about the functions of SPs and the structures of programs that implement these complex educational endeavors.

The EVMS pain education initiative: a multifaceted approach to resident education.

UNLABELLED: Chronic pain is a major health issue that causes significant patient morbidity as well as economic loss. Many studies have highlighted the lack of training in chronic pain management for resident physicians and the need to develop programs that address the challenges of providing care to chronic pain patients. We wanted to determine whether a workshop using a combination of standardized patients, small groups, and large group lectures addresses residents' curricular needs regarding chronic pain management. We developed a 1-day workshop for residents at Eastern Virginia Medical School, which has a nationally recognized professional skills center. After completing the workshop, residents showed significant gains in knowledge (post-test vs pre-test overall mean +23.4%, P < .001). Significant gains in clinical skills were also seen (overall +5.9%, P < .001) with improvements in the areas of pain assessment (+6.3%, P < .001), physical examination (+7.7%, P < .03), and pain management (+8%, P < .01). Physicians also reported increased comfort regarding chronic pain management. Almost all residents stated they would make specific practice changes in the assessment and management of chronic pain patients. The results suggest our workshop is a novel model that is effective in teaching residents how to assess and manage chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article demonstrates that the use of standardized patients with other teaching methods is an effective approach in teaching resident physicians regarding the assessment and management of chronic pain patients. The findings have the potential to restructure our methods of teaching in chronic pain education.

Assessment of patient management skills and clinical skills of practising doctors using computer-based case simulations and standardised patients.

CONTEXT: Standardised assessments of practising doctors are receiving growing support, but theoretical and logistical issues pose serious obstacles. OBJECTIVES: To obtain reference performance levels from experienced doctors on computer-based case simulation (CCS) and standardised patient-based (SP) methods, and to evaluate the utility of these methods in diagnostic assessment. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was carried out at a military tertiary care facility and involved 54 residents and credentialed staff from the emergency medicine, general surgery and internal medicine departments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Doctors completed 8 CCS and 8 SP cases targeted at doctors entering the profession. Standardised patient performances were compared to archived Year 4 medical student data. RESULTS: While staff doctors and residents performed well on both CCS and SP cases, a wide range of scores was exhibited on all cases. There were no significant differences between the scores of participants from differing specialties or of varying experience. Among participants who completed both CCS and SP testing (n = 44), a moderate positive correlation between CCS and SP checklist scores was observed. There was a negative correlation between doctor experience and SP checklist scores. Whereas the time students spent with SPs varied little with clinical task, doctors appeared to spend more time on communication/counselling cases than on cases involving acute/chronic medical problems. CONCLUSION: Computer-based case simulations and standardised patient-based assessments may be useful as part of a multimodal programme to evaluate practising doctors. Additional study is needed on SP standard setting and scoring methods. Establishing empirical likelihoods for a range of performances on assessments of this character should receive priority.