Virtual patient tutorials in the undergraduate paediatric curriculum Gareth Jones 1 Stephen Kempley...

Virtual patient tutorials in the undergraduate paediatric curriculum

Gareth  Jones1

Stephen Kempley2 Mark Roberts1,2

1Institute of Health Science Education,

Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

2Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

@G_Ljones G.jones@qmul.ac.uk

Less clinical time

Broader curriculum with different emphasis

More students on the wards

Less individual opportunities for patient contact

The need to diversify from didactic teaching

Safe environment to practice

Repetition of key clinical topics

Transferable skills

Multiple uses e.g. summative & formative

Control of own learning

Under-utilised

Costly- Time and expertise

Lacking human component

Lack of feedback to and from learners

Students Demanding more

Blended Learning

Virtual patient - Tutorial

Virtual patient design

Method

Linear Branching Personalised- e.g. Name insertion and avatars Common paediatric topics: fever & urinary tract infectionEvidence & guideline basedTailored feedback

Virtual patient design

Method

Tutorial design

Linear Branching Personalised- e.g. Name insertion and avatars Common paediatric topics: fever & urinary tract infectionEvidence & guideline basedTailored feedback

Fourth Year medical students (n=21) prior to placement in

paediatrics

One tutor with knowledge of virtual patients and paediatrics

Interactivity/Tracking using Nearpod tablet App & computer program

Introduction addressing how/when/why Virtual patients are used

Core part of tutorial with students completing Virtual patient

Summary of session with Key learning points

Two parts: Part one via Nearpod (online app)Part two paper questionnaire

Part one: Clinical focusPaediatric history, examination and

guidelinesShort answer questions & single best

answer

Part two:Tutorial/VP focus Likert scale: Satisfaction ratings & free text

Content, feedback, Clinically realistic

Evaluation design

Results

  Before AfterStatistical test -

significance

Percentage of history items correctly identified - Mean (SD)

56% (SD 14%)

98% (SD 6%)

Paired Wilcoxon p=0.002

Correct physical examination identified (%) 54% 100% Fishers exact p=0.015Correct guideline identified (%) 8% 85% Fishers exact p=<0.001

Results

Enjoyable

Objectives were met

Actively engaged

Clinical realistic

Clinical evolution

Sufficiently challenging

Adequate feedback

Utility for future learning

0% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% strongly agree (composite score)

Free text statements:“We should have more VP sessions for other modules!”“Personally I like to supplement my knowledge with books”“Virtual, so safe!”

DiscussionHigh levels of satisfaction

Increased knowledge

Students able to repeat in their own time

How long was knowledge retained for?

How much IT knowledge does a clinician

have/need

Increased independent student usage of VPs?

Take home messagesVirtual patients in a tutorial setting are acceptable and lead to learning (..at least in the short term).

Clinicians should be encouraged to embrace and utilise technology in teaching.

Utilising virtual patients in more diverse ways may justify the time and expertise committed to their development

Acknowledgements

Dr. Stephen Kempley

Dr. Mark Roberts

Ms. Karin Fernandez

Dr. Charlotte Dinkel

@G_Ljones G.jones@qmul.ac.uk

Icons: FlatIcon.com

Virtual patient tutorials in the undergraduate paediatric curriculum

Gareth  Jones1

Stephen Kempley2 Mark Roberts1,2

1Institute of Health Science Education,

Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

2Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

@G_Ljones G.jones@qmul.ac.uk