When Play Reveals the Ache: Introducing Co-constructive Patient Simulation for Narrative Practitioners in Medical Education

IF 1.2 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Indigo Weller, Maura Spiegel, Marco Antonio de Carvalho Filho, Andrés Martin
{"title":"When Play Reveals the Ache: Introducing Co-constructive Patient Simulation for Narrative Practitioners in Medical Education","authors":"Indigo Weller, Maura Spiegel, Marco Antonio de Carvalho Filho, Andrés Martin","doi":"10.1007/s10912-023-09837-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite the ubiquity of healthcare simulation and the humanities in medical education, the two domains of learning remain unintegrated. The stories suffused within healthcare simulation have thus remained unshaped by the developments of narrative medicine and the health humanities. Healthcare simulation, in turn, has yet to utilize concepts like co-construction and narrative competence to enrich learners’ understanding of patient experience alongside their clinical competencies. To create a conceptual bridge between these two fields (including narrative-based inquiry more broadly), we redescribe narrative competence via Ronald Heifetz’s distinction of “technical” and “adaptive” challenges outlined in his adaptive leadership model. Heifetz, we argue, enriches learners’ self-understanding of the unique demands of cultivating narrative competence, which can be both elucidated on the page and tested within the charged yet supportive simulation environment. We introduce Co-constructive Patient Simulation (CCPS) to demonstrate how working with simulated patients can support narrative work by drawing on the clinical vicissitudes of learners in the formulation and enactment of case studies. The three movements of CCPS—resensing, retelling, and retooling—told through learner experiences, describe the affinities and divergences between narrative medicine’s sequence of attention, representation, and affiliation; Montello’s three forms of narrative competence (departure, performance, change), and Heifetz’s three steps (observe, interpret, and intervene) of adaptive leadership.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-023-09837-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the ubiquity of healthcare simulation and the humanities in medical education, the two domains of learning remain unintegrated. The stories suffused within healthcare simulation have thus remained unshaped by the developments of narrative medicine and the health humanities. Healthcare simulation, in turn, has yet to utilize concepts like co-construction and narrative competence to enrich learners’ understanding of patient experience alongside their clinical competencies. To create a conceptual bridge between these two fields (including narrative-based inquiry more broadly), we redescribe narrative competence via Ronald Heifetz’s distinction of “technical” and “adaptive” challenges outlined in his adaptive leadership model. Heifetz, we argue, enriches learners’ self-understanding of the unique demands of cultivating narrative competence, which can be both elucidated on the page and tested within the charged yet supportive simulation environment. We introduce Co-constructive Patient Simulation (CCPS) to demonstrate how working with simulated patients can support narrative work by drawing on the clinical vicissitudes of learners in the formulation and enactment of case studies. The three movements of CCPS—resensing, retelling, and retooling—told through learner experiences, describe the affinities and divergences between narrative medicine’s sequence of attention, representation, and affiliation; Montello’s three forms of narrative competence (departure, performance, change), and Heifetz’s three steps (observe, interpret, and intervene) of adaptive leadership.

当游戏揭示痛楚:在医学教育中为叙事实践者引入共建式病人模拟
尽管医疗模拟和人文学科在医学教育中无处不在,但这两个学习领域仍未融合。因此,叙事医学和健康人文的发展仍未塑造出充斥在医疗模拟中的故事。反过来,医疗模拟也尚未利用共同建构和叙事能力等概念来丰富学习者对患者体验的理解,以及他们的临床能力。为了在这两个领域(包括更广泛的基于叙事的探究)之间架起一座概念桥梁,我们通过罗纳德-海菲兹(Ronald Heifetz)在其适应性领导力模型中概述的 "技术 "和 "适应性 "挑战的区别来重新描述叙事能力。我们认为,海菲兹丰富了学习者对培养叙事能力的独特要求的自我理解,这种能力既可以在书本上阐明,也可以在紧张而又支持性的模拟环境中进行测试。我们引入了 "共同建构病人模拟"(Co-constructive Patient Simulation,CCPS),以展示与模拟病人一起工作如何通过利用学习者在制定和实施病例研究中的临床变化来支持叙事工作。通过学习者的经验,CCPS 的三个动作--重述、重述和重修--描述了叙事医学的关注、表述和关联顺序;蒙泰罗的三种叙事能力形式(出发、表现、改变)和海菲兹的适应性领导三个步骤(观察、解释和干预)之间的相似性和差异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Humanities
Journal of Medical Humanities HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信