Structural Inequities in the Treatment of Standardized Patients and What That Means for Patient Care.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: Standardized patients (SPs) play a pivotal role in medical education. They are proxies for real patients, preparing students to meet the challenges of excellent patient care. Human simulation, with SPs, is used for teaching and assessing communication and clinical skills in medical education around the world. Standardized patients work individually with other faculty, students, or in conjunction with medical faculty to facilitate learning with feedback. In most simulation centers, SPs receive extensive training in communication and clinical skills, yet they inhabit territory often unrecognized as professional in medical education. The manner in which SPs are seen and treated by faculty and students may be a reflection of how real patients are seen and treated-not always heard, not always respected-and this tension detracts from both simulated and real patient encounters. Exploring how SPs, as proxies for real patients, are treated in medical education is a key to what we might learn and how we might close gaps in cultural respect and, ultimately, in patient care.

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.