ArticleJournal of patient experience2025
Simulated Patient Experience Workshop as a Model for Feedback and Continuous Improvement in Practicing Physicians.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-physician communication is a critical component of care in the emergency department (ED) and can be challenging within the fast-paced ED environment. Hospitals often use surveys on patient experience to evaluate physician communication skills and determine a need for improvement. As simulation has proven effective in improving physician communication skills, we developed a simulation workshop specifically for emergency physicians. Our design used simulated patient experiences, a group debrief, and scenarios that included critical communication elements that correlate with patient experience. The physicians were surveyed before and after the course. The simulated patients completed evaluation checklists and patient experience surveys for each of the physician participants. Patient experience ratings increased from 76% to 90% between the predebrief and postdebrief scenarios and 100% of participants would recommend this course to a colleague. A moderate correlation was observed between the prior year average of clinical patient experience scores for each physician and the initial simulated participant experience ratings (r(6) = .52,
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.