MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414163839 · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102466

Using simulation stethoscopes to support physical exam skill development in health professionals education: A scoping review of educational applications and outcomes

2025· review· en· W4414163839 on OpenAlex
Fong Chan, Jessica Lee, Ariel Hsuan Lu, London Gokarn, Daniel Rainkie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia
KeywordsStethoscopePharmacyHealth professionalsHealth professionsHealth careProfessional developmentFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Developing physical assessment skills relies on practicing with healthy peer learners and standardized patients or simulating pathologic sounds with mannequins. Simulation stethoscopes bridges both by offering learners an opportunity to communicate with a live patient and hear pathologic sounds. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to map the use of simulation stethoscopes in health professions, describe how they are integrated into training, and identify further research opportunities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework with advancements by Levac and colleagues. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and bibliographies of included studies. Eligible studies involved simulation stethoscopes used in health professions education. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and mapped outcomes. Study characteristics, populations, learning objectives, disease states, and simulation design were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Six studies were included. These studies were published between 2011 and 2023 and conducted in the USA (n = 5) and UK (n = 1). Study populations included pharmacy students, paramedics, medical students, physician residents, and physiotherapists. Simulation stethoscopes were used during respiratory, cardiovascular, and acute paramedic scenarios on standardized patients, peer learners, and mannequins. Mapped outcomes included physical exam knowledge, technique, interpretation of findings, confidence, fidelity, and simulation evaluation. IMPLICATIONS: Studies demonstrated the flexible use of simulation stethoscopes among healthcare professions by providing high realism with a focus on skills development and learner confidence. Further research on the role of simulation stethoscopes in teaching physical assessment, including their benefits and implications for student learning and confidence, especially among pharmacy professionals, would be beneficial.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.440 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it