METHOD: In 1995, using a language rating scale constructed by the authors, six standardized patients evaluated the English-language proficiencies of 127 second-year medical student undergraduates enrolled at the University of Adelaide, Australia, many of whom were from a non-English speaking background.
RESULTS: An earlier standardized test (Screening Test for Adolescent Language) had identified approximately one third of the students as potentially experiencing difficulties in using English in their training. Students so identified were rated lower than were their peers by the standardized patients.
CONCLUSION: The study proved useful both in identifying aspects of speech that can be reasonably rated by standardized patients and also in identifying students who might benefit from language interventions. Replication studies with the new instrument are required to further establish its reliability, validity, and generalizability across different student cohorts.
APPROACH: The simulation curriculum, with five weekly modules, was a component of a noncadaveric human anatomy course for three classes (n = 81 students) from September 2011 to November 2013. The modules were designed around major anatomical regions (thorax; abdomen and pelvis; lower extremities and back; upper extremities; and head and neck) and used various types of simulation (standardized patients, high-fidelity simulators, and task trainers). Several methods were used to evaluate the curriculum's efficacy, including comparing pre- versus posttest scores and comparing posttest scores against the score on 15 clinical correlation final exam questions.
OUTCOMES: A total of 81 students (response rate: 100%) completed all pre- and posttests and consented to participate. Posttest scores suggest significant knowledge acquisition and better consistency of performance after participation in the curriculum. The comparison of performance on the posttests and final exam suggests that using simulation as an adjunctive pedagogy can lead to excellent short-term knowledge retention.
NEXT STEPS: Simulation-based medical education may prove useful in preclinical basic science curricula. Next steps should be to validate the use of this approach, demonstrate cost-efficacy or the "return on investment" for educational and institutional leadership, and examine longer-term knowledge retention.
METHODS: A mixed method design was used. Fourth-year medical students participated in a consultation/liaison psychiatry service to two government-operated primary care clinics. Each student attended two half-day consultations to the clinics during the psychiatry clinical clerkship. Students joined in discussions with primary care clinicians, performed supervised clinical assessments, and administered a depression screening instrument. The learning experience was evaluated through four focus groups, each with 9-10 participants, held throughout the academic year. An end-of-year, anonymous, online questionnaire survey was administered to the entire class. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts was performed and quantitative statistics were calculated (Stata version 13).
RESULTS: Focus group themes included the following: (a) active learning opportunities in primary care psychiatry consultation had perceived added educational value, (b) students benefited from contact with patients with previously undiagnosed common mental disorders, and (c) students' primary care experience raised their awareness of societal and professional responsibilities. Of the class of 113 students, 93 (82%) responded to the questionnaire. The survey responses reflected the qualitative themes, with 79 respondents (85%) stating that the learning experience met or exceeded their expectations.
CONCLUSIONS: Academic psychiatry has been criticized for its overreliance on secondary care settings in undergraduate clinical teaching. Our findings suggest that supervised clinical placements in primary care are feasible and provide added educational value as a routine component of the undergraduate psychiatry clinical clerkship.