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.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire to survey final-year medical students at one school in 1999. It tested students' patient-centeredness, "patient-care" values, and degree of comfort in performing certain intimate physical examinations.
RESULTS: Women students were more patient-centered than were men students. Both genders were more attuned to the concerns of patients of their own gender, were more comfortable with personal rather than sexual issues, and were more uncomfortable with performing more intimate examinations upon the opposite gender. Using comparable case studies, it was also shown that the female student-female patient dyad had significantly greater "patient-care" values than did the male student-male patient dyad.
CONCLUSION: Medical students did not behave in a gender-neutral way in the consultation. There is a powerful interaction between a student's gender and a patient's gender. This warrants further investigation in the real clinical situation because it has implications on the outcomes of the consultation.
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.