Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30574008›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2018

Simulation training in palliative care: state of the art and future directions.

Dmitry Kozhevnikov, Laura J Morrison, Matthew S Ellman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Announcements of Death During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Family Experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Values and Uncertainty at End of Life: A Standardized Patient Case for Preclinical Medical Students.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dmitry KozhevnikovDepartment of Medicine, Yale Palliative Care Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA, Dmitry.kozhevnikov@yale.edu.
Laura J MorrisonDepartment of Medicine, Yale Palliative Care Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA, Dmitry.kozhevnikov@yale.edu.
Matthew S EllmanDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Yale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing need for palliative care (PC) among patients with serious illness is outstripped by the short supply of PC specialists. This mismatch calls for competency of all health care providers in primary PC, including patient-centered communication, management of pain and other symptoms, and interprofessional teamwork. Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has emerged as a promising modality to teach key skills and close the educational gap. This paper describes the current state of SBME in training of PC skills.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting on simulation experiences addressing PC skills for clinical learners in medicine and nursing. We collected data on learner characteristics, the method and content of the simulation, and outcome assessments.

resultsIn a total of 78 studies, 76% involved learners from medicine and 38% involved learners from nursing, while social work (6%) and spiritual care (3%) learners were significantly underrepresented. Only 16% of studies involved collaboration between participants at different training levels. The standardized patient encounter was the most popular simulation method, accounting for 68% of all studies. Eliciting treatment preferences (50%), delivering bad news (41%), and providing empathic communication (40%) were the most commonly addressed skills, while symptom management was only addressed in 13% of studies. The most common method of simulation evaluation was subjective participant feedback (62%). Only 4% of studies examined patient outcomes. In 22% of studies, simulation outcomes were not measured at all. DISCUSSION: We describe the current state of SBME in PC education, highlighting advances over recent decades and identifying gaps and opportunities for future directions. We recommend designing SBME for a broader range of learners and for interprofessional skill building. We advocate for expansion of skill content, especially symptom management education. Finally, evaluation of SBME in PC training should be more rigorous with a shift to include more patient outcomes.

Indexed as

medical educationpalliative carepalliative medicinesimulation trainingstandardized patientstructured clinical examination

Identifiers

PMID30574008
PMCPMC6292390
OpenAlexW2902696001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.