• J A Gordon, W M Wilkerson, D W Shaffer, and E G Armstrong.
• Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, CLN 115, Boston, MA 02114-2696, USA. jgordon3@partners.org
• Acad Med. 2001 May 1; 76 (5): 469-72.

PurposeTo understand the responses of medical students and educators to high-fidelity patient simulation, a new technology allowing "practice without risk."MethodPilot groups of students (n = 27) and educators (n = 33) were exposed to a simulator session, then surveyed with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Open-ended comments were transcribed and coded. They were analyzed for recurring themes and tested for inter-rater agreement. An independent focus group subsequently performed higher-level thematic analysis.ResultsOverall, 85% of the students rated the session excellent and 85% of the educators rated it excellent or very good. Over 80% of both groups thought that simulator-based training should be required for all medical students. Analytic categories derived from written comments were: Overall Assessment (i.e., "generally good experience"); Process Descriptors (i.e., "very realistic"); Teaching Utility (i.e., "broad educational tool"); Pedagogic Efficacy (i.e., "promotes critical thinking"); and Goals for Future Use (i.e., "more practice sessions"). Thirty percent of students and 38% of educators were impressed by the realism of the simulator, and they (37% and 25%, respectively) identified the ability to "practice" medicine as the primary advantage of simulation. The focus group rated cost as the major current disadvantage (66%).ConclusionsStudents' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation were very positive. The ability to practice without risk must be weighed against the cost of this new technology.

23 keywords...

hide…