An interactive ‘patient-simulation’ tutorial for students learning about epilepsy. Josie A Fraser & Iain M Bloomfield, School of Pharmacy & Theatre in the Mill The issue: Photos by Mark Dolby
Was the session interesting?
★ Objective: to improve student understanding and interest in this key
% respondents by experience
★ Key topic on the module Pathophysiology & Pharmacology of Systems 2 = epilepsy
60
area, without increasing number of lectures, and to develop existing tutorial case study strategy
★ Deliver two versions of an epilepsy case study: ★
★
one paper-based version of same case study (written by Josie).
Very !! Quite!! OK! ! Interesting!Interesting
Dull!!
Boring
patient
paper
know much more
53%
50%
know quite a lot more
42%
44%
not sure
0
4%
don’t know more than before session
5% (1 student)
0
don’t understand topic at all
0
0
Number of students
Assessment:
10 Strong preference patient
Prefer patient
Neutral
Prefer paper
Strong preference paper
paper version
actor simulation
Responses to technical question on anti-epileptic drugs:
★ 84% of students who had done the ‘live’ exercise & 74% of students doing the paper case study felt motivated to learn more about ★ Both groups felt they knew a lot more about epilepsy after the case study, however it was presented.
20
0
★ The students with the ‘live’ experience found it significantly more interesting (90% said very or quite interesting, vs. 70% of paper group), though generally students found the case interesting however it was presented.
epilepsy & anti-epileptic drugs.
30
★ 7 groups received the paper version, with 3 different staff leading these groups
★ Qualitative responses recorded for module development
experience, or were neutral. Very few students had a preference for paper-based group work.
40
★ 3 groups (maximum due to timetable constraints) received the ‘live’ version
★ Responses were analysed according to which experience students had received (live or paper)
15
What exercise did students prefer?
★ 10 tutorial groups were already set up for this large module (173 participants on the module register)
collected (MCQ responses and open written feedback on module in general and the epilepsy exercise in particular)
30
Improved understanding?
one ‘live’ case study, students meet the ‘patient’ (played by actor Andy, coached by Iain).
★ 3 weeks after session, in a lecture and without warning, anonymous student assessment was
★ Students who had experienced the ‘live’ tutorial strongly preferred this format to a paper-based exercise, & students who had experienced the paper exercise mostly felt they would have preferred to do the ‘live’
45
0
Design:
Results:
patient paper
21%
26%
Correct Incorrect 79%
Correct Incorrect 74%
Conclusions: ★ A ‘live’ interaction with a simulated patient is more interesting, motivates students to learn more about the topic overall, and is strongly preferred (by the students themselves) to a paper-based exercise.
★ Student perceptions of technical knowledge gained differed: the paper-based students were ‘more confident’ that they could identify technical terms and definitions, perhaps because this was emphasized by some of the tutorial leaders? ★ However, objective evidence from a technical MCQ on anti-epileptic drugs showed that both groups were able to answer the question equally well; indeed, if anything, the live group were slightly more likely to get the correct answer.