Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 33–39

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Simulation-Based Teaching versus Traditional Instruction in Medicine: A Pilot Study among Clinical Medical Students

Authors

    • Center for Medical Simulation
    • G.S. Beckwith Gilbert and Katharine S. Gilbert Medical Education Program in Medical SimulationHarvard Medical School
    • Department of Emergency MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital
    • Department of Emergency MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital
  • David W. Shaffer
    • Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Daniel B. Raemer
    • Center for Medical Simulation
    • Department of Anaesthesia and Critical CareMassachusetts General Hospital
  • John Pawlowski
    • Center for Medical Simulation
    • G.S. Beckwith Gilbert and Katharine S. Gilbert Medical Education Program in Medical SimulationHarvard Medical School
    • Department of Anesthesia and Critical CareBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  • William E. Hurford
    • Center for Medical Simulation
    • Department of Anaesthesia and Critical CareMassachusetts General Hospital
    • Department of AnesthesiaUniversity of Cincinnati
  • Jeffrey B. Cooper
    • Center for Medical Simulation
    • Department of Anaesthesia and Critical CareMassachusetts General Hospital
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10459-004-7346-7

Cite this article as:
Gordon, J.A., Shaffer, D.W., Raemer, D.B. et al. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract (2006) 11: 33. doi:10.1007/s10459-004-7346-7

Abstract

Objective: To compare simulator-based teaching with traditional instruction among clinical medical students. Methods: Randomized controlled trial with written pre-post testing. Third-year medical students (n = 38) received either a myocardial infarction (MI) simulation followed by a reactive airways disease (RAD) lecture, or a RAD simulation followed by an MI lecture. Results: Mean pre-post test score improvement was seen across teaching modalities (overall change score [simulation] = 8.8 [95% CI = 2.3–15.3], pretest [62.7]; change score [lecture] = 11.3 [95% CI = 5.7–16.9], pretest [59.7]). However, no significant differences were observed between simulator-based teaching and lecture, in either subject domain. Conclusions: After a single instructional session for clinical medical students, differences between simulator-based teaching and lecture could not be established by the written test protocols used in this pilot. Future studies should consider the effects of iterative exposure assessed by clinical performance measures across multiple centers.

Copyright information

© Springer 2006