ArticleCureus2022
Quality in Standardized Patient Training and Delivery: Retrospective Documentary Analysis of Trainer and Instructor Feedback.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Choosing Wisely for Simulation-Based Learning in Health Professions Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Enhancing healthcare communication education: Standardised patient programmes.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background An important aspect of developing and maintaining a high-quality standardized patient (SP) program is incorporating quality assurance processes. Trainer and instructor feedbacks are considered critical in achieving these goals. The aim of this study is to determine programmatic and systematic issues in the scope of quality assurance and improvement through trainer and instructor feedback on SP performance. We also presented a logic model based on a synthesis of the current literature to ensure the development and maintenance of a quality management culture in the SP program. Methods A retrospective analysis of SP scoring was conducted, and written feedback forms completed by trainers and instructors in a large Canadian university's SP program were collected. The previous six years (2014-2020) of SP feedback forms in the scope of quality assurance were reviewed and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the ratings. Thematic analysis was conducted on the data gathered from the written feedback. Results A total of 138 feedback forms were reviewed and analyzed in the study. The mean ratings given by the trainers for feedback and professionalism were 4.27 ± 1.29 and 4.77 ± 0.8, respectively. The mean ratings given by the instructors for knowledge of case information, appropriate responses, and affect were 4.84 ± 0.64, 4.86 ± 0.35, and 4.71 ± 0.76, respectively (from a range of 1 to 5). Four key themes emerged from the written feedback: nonverbal behaviors in simulation activity or feedback sessions, providing feedback from the patient perspective, consistency between role portrayal and scenario, and adapting easily to changing situations. Conclusions Component scoring on SP performance did not discriminate individual issues, but the qualitative comments identified certain specific issues. Further research is needed to establish standards of continuous quality improvement (CQI) within an SP program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.