Assessing the equivalency of face-to-face and online simulated patient interviews in an educational intervention.

Abstract

Background: In adapting to COVID-19, many health professional training programs moved abruptly from in-person to online simulated patient interviews for teaching and evaluation without the benefit of evidence regarding the efficacy of this mode of delivery. This paper reports on a multi-methods research project comparing in-person and online simulated patient interviews conducted by allied health professionals as part of an educational intervention offered at a large university teaching hospital.

Methods: Twenty-three participants conducted two 15-min interviews with simulated patients using previously validated scenarios of patients presenting with suicide risk. In order to assess the equivalency of the two modalities, physiological and psychological stress were measured using heart rate variability parameters and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory respectively, and then were compared across cohorts using t-tests. Reflective interviews elicited qualitative impressions of the simulations that were subject to thematic qualitative analysis.

Results: There were no statistical differences in measures of psychological stress or physiological arousal of participant health care professionals who engaged with in-person versus online simulated interviews, suggesting they were equally effective in eliciting reactions commonly found in challenging clinical situations. In reflective interviews, participants commented on the realism of both modalities of simulated patient encounters and that simulated interviews provoked emotional and physiological responses consistent with actual patient encounters.

Conclusions: These findings provide developing evidence that carefully designed online clinical simulations can be a useful tool for the education and assessment of healthcare professionals.