Event Title

THE SIMULATED PATIENT ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH, AND COLLABORATION PROJECT (SPARC)

Location

Atrium

Format

Poster

Start Date

26-1-2013 11:15 AM

End Date

26-1-2013 11:45 AM

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: At least 80% of medical schools in the United States use standardized patients (SPs) for the training and evaluation of students (Clay, M. C., Lane, H., Willis, S. E., Peal, M., Chakravarthi, S., & Poehlman, G., 2000). Despite the potential benefits of using SPs in professional psychology, there has been little research regarding their effectiveness in the preparation of mental health practitioners.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the SPARC study is to investigate whether practice interviewing with a SP results in greater skill development than role-playing with a peer.

METHODOLOGY: Participants in each condition were required to attend five, three-hour laboratory sessions and engage in 15-minute pre- and post-assessment interviews with a SP. Sessions were held in classrooms, and assessments were conducted in the on-campus mental health clinic. Laboratory session facilitators were provided with detailed protocols based upon actual, de-identified cases, and pre- and post-test sessions were videotaped to evaluate interviewing skills and laboratory sessions were videotaped to assess fidelity of implementation. Each role play/simulation was 10 minutes in length. Participants received verbal feedback regarding interviewing skills from both the group facilitators as well as their peers.

RESULTS: Qualitative feedback from participating students has been consistently positive. Participants cite the opportunity to engage in simulated sessions as extremely beneficial. Furthermore, the students reported appreciating extra structured practice prior to their first practicum experience. A weakness of the study was the significant time commitment required for participation (a total of five, three-hour sessions, as well as the pre- and posttests) resulting in a relatively small number of participants (N=15)

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, qualitative responses to the study are consistent with the authors’ hypothesized benefits of utilizing SPs. Data are being collected in order to evaluate the efficacy of SPs as a method of instruction.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Jan 26th, 11:15 AM Jan 26th, 11:45 AM

THE SIMULATED PATIENT ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH, AND COLLABORATION PROJECT (SPARC)

Atrium

INTRODUCTION: At least 80% of medical schools in the United States use standardized patients (SPs) for the training and evaluation of students (Clay, M. C., Lane, H., Willis, S. E., Peal, M., Chakravarthi, S., & Poehlman, G., 2000). Despite the potential benefits of using SPs in professional psychology, there has been little research regarding their effectiveness in the preparation of mental health practitioners.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the SPARC study is to investigate whether practice interviewing with a SP results in greater skill development than role-playing with a peer.

METHODOLOGY: Participants in each condition were required to attend five, three-hour laboratory sessions and engage in 15-minute pre- and post-assessment interviews with a SP. Sessions were held in classrooms, and assessments were conducted in the on-campus mental health clinic. Laboratory session facilitators were provided with detailed protocols based upon actual, de-identified cases, and pre- and post-test sessions were videotaped to evaluate interviewing skills and laboratory sessions were videotaped to assess fidelity of implementation. Each role play/simulation was 10 minutes in length. Participants received verbal feedback regarding interviewing skills from both the group facilitators as well as their peers.

RESULTS: Qualitative feedback from participating students has been consistently positive. Participants cite the opportunity to engage in simulated sessions as extremely beneficial. Furthermore, the students reported appreciating extra structured practice prior to their first practicum experience. A weakness of the study was the significant time commitment required for participation (a total of five, three-hour sessions, as well as the pre- and posttests) resulting in a relatively small number of participants (N=15)

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, qualitative responses to the study are consistent with the authors’ hypothesized benefits of utilizing SPs. Data are being collected in order to evaluate the efficacy of SPs as a method of instruction.