Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Misconceptions and the Evidence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Implementing Best Practices in Standardized Patient Methodology

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

  • 671 Accesses

Abstract

Many common misconceptions about simulated/ standardized patient (SP) methodology have emerged over the past few decades. While some of these ideas may appear to be humorous or benign, others can have an undesireable impact on a simulation session.  Collected from the reports of a wide range of SP educators (SPEs) from around the world, we address these misperceptions in an evidence-based manner. Topics include authenticity, acting, general considerations for working with SPs, training, assessment, the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) (Lewis et al., Adv Simul 2(1):10, 2017) and the role of SPEs. We draw on evidence and practice for clarifying these misunderstandings and provide strategies that can be shared with stakeholders such as faculty, other SPEs or SPs, to promote the implementation of SP methodology in a knowledgeable, safe and effective manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Misconception, n. [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2019 [cited 20 June 2019]. Available from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/misconception.

  2. Lewis KL, Bohnert CA, Gammon WL, Hölzer H, Lyman L, Smith C, et al. The association of standardized patient educators (ASPE) standards of best practice (SOBP). Adv Simul. 2017;2(1):10.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barrows H. Simulated patients (programmed patients: the development and use of a new technique in medical education). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rethans J, Drop R, Sturmans F, van der Vleuten C. A method for introducing standardized (simulated) patients into general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 1991;41(344):94–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Siminoff LA, Rogers HL, Waller AC, Harris-Haywood S, Esptein RM, Carrio FB, et al. The advantages and challenges of unannounced standardized patient methodology to assess healthcare communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(3):318–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014;9(6):339–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dieckmann P, Manser T, Wehner T, Rall M. Reality and fiction cues in medical patient simulation: An interview study with anesthesiologists. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2007;1(2):148–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Newlin-Canzone ET, Scerbo MW, Gliva-McConvey G, Wallace AM. The cognitive demands of standardized patients: Understanding limitations in attention and working memory with the decoding of nonverbal behavior during improvisations. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(4):207–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nestel D, Krogh K, Kolbe M. Exploring realism in healthcare simulations. In: Nestel D, Kelly M, Jolly B, Watson M, editors. Healthcare simulation education: evidence, theory and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2018. p. 23–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Colliver J, Williams RG. Technical issues: test application. AAMC Academic Medicine. 1993;68(6):454–60.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nestel D, McNaughton N, Smith C, Schlegel C, Tierney T. Values and value in simulated participant methodology: a global perspective on contemporary practices. Med Teach. 2018;40(7):697–702.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Smith C, O’Byrne C, Nestel D. Simulated patient methodology and assessment. In: Nestel D, Bearman M, editors. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. p. 85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nestel D, Gough S. Designing simulation-based learning activities: a systematic approach. In: Nestel D, Kelly M, Jolly B, Watson M, editors. Healthcare simulation education: evidence, theory and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2018. p. 135–42.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cleland J, Abe K, Rethans J. The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 42. Med Teach. 2009;31:477–86.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wallace P. Coaching standardized patients: for use in the assessment of clinical competence. New York: Springer; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lopreiato J, Downing D, Gammon W, Lioce L, Sittner B, Slot V, et al. Healthcare simulation dictionary [Internet]. Society for Simulation in Heatlhcare. 2016 [cited 12 June 2019]. Available from http://www.ssih.org/Dictionary. 

  17. Barrows HS. Training standardized patients to have physical findings. Springfiled, IL.:Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schocken D, Gammon W. Hybrid simulation. In: Palaganas J, Maxworthy J, Epps C, Mancini M, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015. p. 235–40.

    Google Scholar 

  19. McNaughton N. The role of emotion and affect in the work of standardized patients: a critical theoretical analysis. Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Smith CM, Gephardt EG, Nestel D. Applying the theory of Stanislavski to simulation: stepping into role. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(8):361–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schweickerdt-Alker L. Revitalising the SP through authentication: the authentic portrayal. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):541–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Treadwell I, Schweickerdt-Alker L, Pretorius D, Hugo MD. The effect of characterisation training on the congruence of standardised patient portrayals. Afr J Health Prof Educ. 2014;6(1):56–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liao C-S, Kao S-P, Liang S-Y, Hsieh M-C. Training actors as standardized patients. Tzu Chi Med J. 2015;27(2):96–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelles LJ. My body, their story: performing medicine. Can Theatr Rev. 2011;146(1):55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cowperthwait A, Saylor J, Carlsen A, Schmitt LA, Salam T, Melby MK, et al. Healthcare theatre and simulation: maximizing interprofessional partnerships. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11(9):411–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cowperthwait A, Saylor J, Schell K. Healthcare theatre: a unique simulation partnership. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10(1):e41–e6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith C, Edlington TL, Lawton R, Nestel D. The dramatic arts and simulated patient methodology. In: Nestel D, Bearman M, editors. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. p. 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Langenau EE, Dyer C, Roberts WL, De Champlain A, Montrey D, Sandella J. Relationship between standardized patient checklist item accuracy and performing arts experience. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(3):151–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nestel D, Bearman M. Introduction to simulated patient methodology. In: Nestel D, Bearman M, editors. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. p. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McNaughton N, Anderson M. Standardized patients: it’s all in the words. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(7):293–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nestel D, Roche J, Battista A. Creating a quality improvement culture in standardized/simulated patient methodology: the role of professional societies. Adv Simul. 2017;2(1):18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Slone F, Lampotang S. Mannequins: terminology, selection, and usage. In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining Excellence in Simulation Programs. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. p.183–98 

    Google Scholar 

  33. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach. 2013;35(10):e1511–e30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fletcher J, Wind AP. Cost considerations in using simulations for medical training. Mil Med. 2013;178(suppl_10):37–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sanko JS, Shekhter I, Kyle RR, Birnbach DJ. Using embedded simulated persons (aka “confederates”). In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini, ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2015. p. 213–26.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schlegel C, Bonvin R, Rethans J-J, Van der Vleuten C. Standardized patients’ perspectives on workplace satisfaction and work-related relationships: a multicenter study. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(4):278–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McNaughton NL, Tiberius R, Hodges B. Effects of portraying psychologically and emotionally complex standardized patient roles. Teach Learn Med. 1999;11(3):135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Plaksin J, Nicholson J, Kundrod S, Zabar S, Kalet A, Altshuler L. The benefits and risks of being a standardized patient: a narrative review of the literature. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2016;9(1):15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nestel D, Clark S, Tabak D, Ashwell V, Muir E, Paraskevas P, et al. Defining responsibilities of simulated patients in medical education. Simul Healthc. 2010;5(3):161–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Abe K, Roter D, Erby LH, Ban N. A nationwide survey of standardized patients: who they are, what they do, and how they experience their work. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):261–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith C, Sokoloff S, Meyer R. Working with volunteers as standardized/simulated patients: everything you need to know to get started. Preconference workshop. Toronto: INACSL; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nestel D, Calandra A, ElIiott RA. Using volunteer simulated patients in development of pre-registration pharmacists: learning from the experience. Pharm Educ: Int J Pharm Educ. 2007;7(1):35–42. PubMed PMID: 2007-06883-005. English

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. King MA, Ott J. Actors needed: clinical faculty get the call. Nurse Educ. 2012;37(3):105–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Husson N, Zulkosky KD. Recruiting and training volunteer standardized patients in the NCSBN national simulation study. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;9(10):487–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ker JS, Dowie A, Dowell J, Dewar G, Dent JA, Ramsay J, et al. Twelve tips for developing and maintaining a simulated patient bank. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gallimore C, George AK, Brown MC. Pharmacy students’ preferences for various types of simulated patients. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(1). English.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Collins JP, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 13: real patients, simulated patients and simulators in clinical examinations. Med Teach. 1998;20(6):508–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mavis B, Turner J, Lovell K, Wagner D. Developments: faculty, students, and actors as standardized patients: expanding opportunities for performance assessment. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18(2):130–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Murphy S, Imam B, MacIntyre DL. Standardized patients versus volunteer patients for physical therapy students’ interviewing practice: a pilot study. Physiother Can. 2015;67(4):378–84.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bokken L, Rethans JJ, Jöbsis Q, Duvivier R, Scherpbier A, Van Der Vleuten C. Instructiveness of real patients and simulated patients in undergraduate medical education: a randomized experiment. Acad Med. 2010;85(1):148–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Luke K, Smith R. Communication skills training: a United Kingdom perspective. Acad Med. 2012;87(8):993. PubMed PMID: 2013-08954-001. English.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Allen SS, Miller J, Ratner E, Santilli J. The educational and financial impact of using patient educators to teach introductory physical exam skills. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):911–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Code of Ethics Working Group. The Healthcare Simulationist Code of Ethics [Internet]. Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2018 [ cited 1 April 2019]. Available from https://www.ssih.org/SSH-Resources/Code-of-Ethics.

  54. Nestel D, Fleishman C, Bearman M. Preparation: developing scenarios and training for role portrayal. In: Nestel D, Bearman M, editors. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. p. 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Owens T, Gliva-McConvey G. Standardized patients. In: Palaganas JC, Maxworthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. p. 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Smith C, O’Byrne C. Using an exam-readiness tool to ensure quality of standardized/simulated patient role portrayal in high-stakes simulation assessments. Clear Exam Rev. 2017;27(1):17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Furman GE. The role of standardized patient and trainer training in quality assurance for a high-stakes clinical skills examination. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2008;24(12):651–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Nestel D, Sanko J, McNaughton N. Simulated participant methodologies: maintaining humanism in practice. In: Nestel D, Kelly M, Jolly B, Watson M, editors. Healthcare simulation education: evidence, theory and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2018. p. 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nestel D, Mobley B, Hunt EA, Eppich WJ. Confederates in healthcare simulations: not as simple as it seems. Clin Simul Nurs. 2014;10:611–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kachur E. Challenges of working with faculty – case writing & psychological safety. Presentation/discussion. Kansas City, M0: ASPE; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kansas State University. ScienceDaily: How de-roling may help actors shed intense roles [Internet]. ScienceDaily. 5 June 2014 [cited 30 May 2019]. Available from: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140605140011.htm 

  62. Smith C. Debriefing SPs after simulation events (module 10) [Internet] 2012 [accessed 20 Oct 2019]. Available from www.simulatedpatientnetwork.org

  63. Bokken L, Linssen T, Scherpbier A, Van Der Vleuten C, Rethans JJ. Feedback by simulated patients in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of the literature. Med Educ. 2009;43(3):202–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Berenson LD, Goodill SW, Wenger S. Standardized patient feedback: making it work across disciplines. J Allied Health. 2012;41(1):27E–31E.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nestel D, Bearman M, Fleishman C. Simulated patients as teachers: the role of feedback. In: Nestel D, Bearman M, editors. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. p. 71–8. 

    Google Scholar 

  66. Barley GE, Fisher J, Dwinnell B, White K. Teaching foundational physical examination skills: study results comparing lay teaching associates and physician instructors. Acad Med. 2006;81(10):S95–S7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Raj N, Badcock L, Brown G, Deighton C, O’reilly S. Undergraduate musculoskeletal examination teaching by trained patient educators—a comparison with doctor-led teaching. Rheumatology. 2006;45(11):1404–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Van der Vleuten CP, Swanson DB. Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: state of the art. Teach Learn Med. 1990;2(2):58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hodges B, Regehr G, Hanson M, McNaughton N. Validation of an objective structured clinical examination in psychiatry. Acad Med:J Assoc Am Med Coll. 1998;73(8):910–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Boulet JR, De Champlain AF, McKinley DW. Setting defensible performance standards on OSCEs and standardized patient examinations. Med Teach. 2003;25(3):245–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Vu NV, Barrows HS, Marcy ML, Verhulst SJ, Colliver J, Travis T. Six years of comprehensive, clinical, performance-based assessment using standardized patients at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Acad Med. 1992;67(1):42–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Boulet JR, McKinley DW, Whelan GP, Hambleton RK. Quality assurance methods for performance-based assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(1):27–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Boulet JR, Swanson DB. Psychometric challenges of using simulations for high-stakes assessment. In: Dunn W, editor. Simulators in critical care education and beyond. Des Plaines,IL: Society of Critical Care Medicine; 2004. p. 119–30.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hawkins RE, Swanson D, Dillon G, Clauser B, King A, Scoles P, et al. The introduction of clinical skills assessment into the United States medical licensing examination (USMLE): a description of USMLE step 2 clinical skills (CS). J Med Licens Discip. 2005;91:22–5.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Zabar S, Kachur E, Kalet A, Hanley K. Objective structured clinical examinations: 10 steps to planning and implementing OSCEs and other standardized patient exercises. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  76. Swanson DB, Stillman PL. Use of Standardized Patients for Teaching and Assessing Clinical Skills. ​Eval Health Prof. 1990; 13​(1)​: 79–103.  

    Google Scholar 

  77. Elliot DL, Hickam DH. Evaluation of physical examination skills: reliability of faculty observers and patient instructors. JAMA. 1987;258(23):3405–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Aamodt CB, Virtue DW, Dobbie AE. Trained standardized patients can train their peers to provide well-rated, cost-effective physical exam skills training to first-year medical students. Fam Med-Kansas City. 2006;38(5):326.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Hasle JL, Anderson DS, Szerlip HM. Analysis of the costs and benefits of using standardized patients to help teach physical diagnosis. Acad Med: J Assoc Am Med Coll. 1994;69(7):567–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. May W, Park JH, Lee JP. A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996–2005. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):487–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. The National Board of Medical Examiners. Step 2 CS (Clinical Skills) FAQ, Scores, Question 3 - Why does it take so long to score the Step 2 Clinical Skills exam? [Internet]. Federation of State Medical Boards and National Board of Medical Examiners. 2019 [cited 1 June 2019]. Available from: https://www.usmle.org/frequently-asked-questions/#scores

  82. Van Zanten M, Boulet JR, McKinley D. Using standardized patients to assess the interpersonal skills of physicians: six years’ experience with a high-stakes certification examination. J Health Commun. 2007;22(3):195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Daniels VJ, Bordage G, Gierl MJ, Yudkowsky R. Effect of clinically discriminating, evidence-based checklist items on the reliability of scores from an internal medicine residency OSCE. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2014;19(4):497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Gladwell M. Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown; 2005

    Google Scholar 

  85. Manciu M, Trevino R, Mulla ZD, Cortez C, Plavsic SK. Detection of biased rating of medical students by standardized patients: opportunity for improvement. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(3):497–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Boulet JR, Errichetti A. Training and assessment with standardized patients. In Riley RH, editor. Manual of simulation in healthcare. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP; 2106. p. 185–207 

    Google Scholar 

  87. Northon L. Become aware of personal bias, and you’ll improve ethical practice [Internet]. SHRM;. 2016 [cited 30 June 2019]. Available from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/ethical-practice/pages/become-aware-of-personal-bias-and-improve-ethical-practice-.aspx

  88. Pritchard SA, Blackstock FC, Keating JL, Nestel D. The pillars of well-constructed simulated patient programs: a qualitative study with experienced educators. Med Teach. 2017;39(11):1159–67. 

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baycrest, Division of Training & Simulation, Centre for Education, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Cathy M. Smith

  2. Gliva-McConvey & Associates, Human Simulation in Education, Eastern Virginia Medical School (ret), Virginia Beach, VA, USA

    Gayle Gliva-McConvey

Authors
  1. Cathy M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gayle Gliva-McConvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gliva-McConvey & Associates, Human Simulation in Education Eastern Virginia Medical School (ret), Virginia Beach, VA, USA

    Gayle Gliva-McConvey

  2. Simulation Education and Operations at the Clinical Simulation Laboratory at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Catherine F. Nicholas

  3. Executive Director, M Simulation, Office of Academic Clinical Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Lou Clark

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smith, C.M., Gliva-McConvey, G. (2020). Misconceptions and the Evidence. In: Gliva-McConvey, G., Nicholas, C.F., Clark, L. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Implementing Best Practices in Standardized Patient Methodology. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43826-5_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43826-5_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43825-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43826-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation