Standardized patient simulation versus didactic teaching alone for improving residents’ communication skills when discussing goals of care and resuscitation: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication skills are important when discussing goals of care and resuscitation. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of standardized patients for teaching medical trainees to communicate about goals of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standardized patient simulation offers benefit over didactic sessions alone for improving skill and comfort discussing goals of care. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of didactic teaching plus standardized patient simulation versus didactic teaching alone. PARTICIPANTS: First-year internal medicine residents. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in communication comfort and skill between baseline and 2 months post-training assessed using the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure. KEY RESULTS: We enrolled 94 residents over a 2-year period. Both groups reported a significant improvement in comfort when discussing goals of care with patients. There was no difference in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores following the workshop ( p = 0.79). The intervention group showed a significant increase in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores post-workshop compared with pre-workshop (35.0 vs 31.7, respectively; p = 0.048), whereas there was no improvement in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores in the control group (35.6 vs 36.0; p = 0.4). However, when the results were adjusted for baseline differences in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores in a multivariable regression analysis, group assignment was not associated with an improvement in Consultation and Relational Empathy score. Improvement in comfort scores and perception of benefit were not associated with improvements in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores. CONCLUSION: Simulation training may improve communication skill and comfort more than didactic training alone, but there were important confounders in this study and further studies are needed to determine whether simulation is better than didactic training for this purpose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".