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:

★ Key topic on the module Pathophysiology & Pharmacology of Systems 2 = epilepsy

★ Objective: to improve student understanding and interest in this key area, without increasing number of lectures, and to develop existing tutorial case study strategy

Design:

★ Deliver two versions of an epilepsy case study:

★ one ‘live’ case study, students meet the ‘patient’ (played by actor Andy, coached by Iain).

★ one paper-based version of same case study (written by Josie).

★ 10 tutorial groups were already set up for this large module (173 participants on the module register)

★ 3 groups (maximum due to timetable constraints) received the ‘live’ version

★ 7 groups received the paper version, with 3 different staff leading these groups

Assessment:

★ 3 weeks after session, in a lecture and without warning, anonymous student assessment was collected (MCQ responses and open written feedback on module in general and the epilepsy exercise in particular)

★ Responses were analysed according to which experience students had received (live or paper)

★ Qualitative responses recorded for module development

Results:

★ 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’ experience, or were neutral. Very few students had a preference for paper-based group work.

★ 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.

★ 84% of students who had done the ‘live’ exercise & 74% of students doing the paper case study felt motivated to learn more about epilepsy & anti-epileptic drugs.

★ Both groups felt they knew a lot more about epilepsy after the case study, however it was presented.

★ 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.

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.

Phot

os b

y M

ark

Dol

by

0

10

20

30

40

Strong preference patient Prefer patient Neutral Prefer paper Strong preference paper

What exercise did students prefer?N

umb

er o

f stu

den

ts

patientpaper

0

15

30

45

60

Was the session interesting?

% r

esp

ond

ents

by

exp

erie

nce

Very !! Quite !! OK! ! Dull!! BoringInteresting!Interesting

Responses totechnical question on anti-epileptic drugs:

79%

21%

actor simulation

CorrectIncorrect

74%

26%

paper version

CorrectIncorrect

Improved understanding? 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