Simulated patients in medical education - a survey on the current status in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Objective: In German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), simulated patients (SPs) have been a fixture for years and are used in teaching and examinations. As part of ongoing methodological standardization efforts and to support current and future faculty and curriculum developments, this exploratory study systematically investigates how and under what framework and conditions SPs are currently used in German-speaking countries. Methodology: The online questionnaire developed in cooperation with the Committee for Simulated Patients of the Society for Medical Education comprises 58 questions covering the organization and administration, size and design of the SP pool, general conditions and minimum standards for the assignments of the SPs. All medical faculties from Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland were invited to participate in the survey and a descriptive data analysis was performed. Results: 38 responses from 45 faculties were included in the evaluation of the survey (response rate: 84.4%). Most SP programs are affiliated with the Office of the Dean of Studies and skills labs or training centers and funded by faculty resources. Both the working hours in the SP programs and the qualifications of the employees vary extensively. The same applies to the number and average age of the employed SPs. On average each faculty uses 1,290 SP hours per year (min=45, max=6,500). The majority of SPs are used in a teaching environment, together with lecturers. At all sites, SPs provide feedback to students. This is always based on a uniform standard. All SPs receive training, which predominantly focuses on playing their role and giving feedback. Discussion: There are a variety of SP programs in German-speaking countries. While there are a few clear similarities (for example, feedback from SPs), many organizational and methodological aspects are handled differently. Although this allows innovation and flexibility, it also weakens the didactic SP method in its standardization and thus in the comparability of quality. A certain degree of standardization and high methodical quality is of great importance, especially in scientific and faculty internal discussions and with a view to the use of SPs in high-stakes examinations which must be improved in the future.

The communication skills course for second year medical students at Hannover Medical School: An evaluation study based on students' self-assessments.

In the model medical curriculum HannibaL at Hannover Medical School (MHH, Hannover, Germany), communication skills in taking case histories and disclosing diagnoses (breaking bad news) are assessed through an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This is part of the examinations which at the MHH represent the equivalent to the First Part of the Medical Examinations. The second year doctor-patient communication course preparing for these examinations was evaluated during the 2009/10 academic year.Using questionnaires specific to the learning objectives, learning needs were assessed, pre-post comparisons of self-assessed competencies were performed and key teaching methods were evaluated (5-point Likert scales, "5"=fully agree). At T0 (start of the course) 267 students participated (response rate: 93.7%), of which 180 filled out the T1 questionnaire during the last session of the course (67.4%). Within-subject analyses of variance and paired t-tests were conducted.The highest learning needs were found for the "to show how"-items regarding history taking and disclosing diagnoses (M=4.4). The T1-T0 comparisons showed the greatest improvements for history taking ("to know how": mean difference = +1.7, "to show how": +1.8, p<.0001 as with all tests) and the "to know how"-item regarding the disclosure of diagnoses (+1.6), followed by the "to show how"-items on disclosing a diagnosis (+1.4), shared decision making (+1.2), self-assessing one's own strengths/weaknesses (+1.0) and confidently approaching new patients (+0.7). Students with T0 values of 1 or 2 on the respective scales improved on average by 2.2 points across all items, students with the value of 3 by 1.1, and from 4 or 5 by 0.1. Methodically, the use of simulated patients was rated the most helpful (M=4.8, 87% with the scale value 5). This doctor-patient communication course is associated with substantial improvements regarding all key learning objectives. Regarding methods, the deployed simulated patients (2-4 per 10-student-course group in 3 of the 7 course sessions, respectively) were rated the most helpful. The present evaluation calls for both further development of the doctor-patient communication curriculum at the MHH and joint activities across medical schools, which are discussed at the end of the paper.