Abstract
Background: Standardised patients and/or manikins are used for training and assessment of paramedics in the Netherlands. Standardised patients are actors, trained to portray certain symptoms and syndromes. Advanced computer-controlled manikins can display varying parameters, depending on the treatment received.
Aim: To investigate any difference between the use of a manikin only or a manikin Regular with a standardised patient for training and assessment with regard to how realistic the simulation is as perceived by participants.
Method: During a five-week period all paramedics taking part in a yearly assessment, consisting of the same patient case (n=25) were randomly allocated to group 1 (manikin only) or group 2 (standardised patient and manikin). The participants completed a questionnaire in which they indicated how realistic they thought the simulation had been. The assessors completed a questionnaire concerning observable aspects of how realistic the participants had perceived the simulation to be.
Results: An independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the total scores of the participants in group 1 (manikin) (M=3.10; SD=.691) and group 2 (SP and manikin) (M=3.96; SD=.804); t(23)=-2.852, p=.009. The assessors’ total group scores also differed significantly (Mann-Whitney-U-test: Z=- 2,484; p=.013).
Discussion and conclusion: The use of a combination of a simulated patient and a manikin seems to be preferable to that of a manikin only. Participants perceived the combination as more realistic. Because of the small sample of this study, further research will be undertaken among a larger sample. (Brendel RJAM, De Best JBN, De With CM. How realistic are simulations in emergency medicine training? Dutch Journal of Medical Education 2007;26(3):111-117.)
Aim: To investigate any difference between the use of a manikin only or a manikin Regular with a standardised patient for training and assessment with regard to how realistic the simulation is as perceived by participants.
Method: During a five-week period all paramedics taking part in a yearly assessment, consisting of the same patient case (n=25) were randomly allocated to group 1 (manikin only) or group 2 (standardised patient and manikin). The participants completed a questionnaire in which they indicated how realistic they thought the simulation had been. The assessors completed a questionnaire concerning observable aspects of how realistic the participants had perceived the simulation to be.
Results: An independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the total scores of the participants in group 1 (manikin) (M=3.10; SD=.691) and group 2 (SP and manikin) (M=3.96; SD=.804); t(23)=-2.852, p=.009. The assessors’ total group scores also differed significantly (Mann-Whitney-U-test: Z=- 2,484; p=.013).
Discussion and conclusion: The use of a combination of a simulated patient and a manikin seems to be preferable to that of a manikin only. Participants perceived the combination as more realistic. Because of the small sample of this study, further research will be undertaken among a larger sample. (Brendel RJAM, De Best JBN, De With CM. How realistic are simulations in emergency medicine training? Dutch Journal of Medical Education 2007;26(3):111-117.)
| Translated title of the contribution | Lotus or manikin?: How realistic are simulations in emergency medicine training? |
|---|---|
| Original language | Dutch |
| Pages (from-to) | 85-89 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Tijdschrift voor medisch onderwijs |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2007 |
| Externally published | Yes |