Using a computer simulation for teaching communication skills: A blinded multisite mixed methods randomized controlled trial

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.024Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Students improved their communication skill with repeated use of MPathic-VR.

  • Knowledge transferred from MPathic-VR to a clinically realistic OSCE scenario.

  • Attitudinal ratings were higher for MPathic-VR students than for CBL students.

  • Evaluation of students training experiences favored MPathic-VR over CBL.

  • MPathic-VR may offer an effective and engaging way to train communication skills.

Abstract

Objectives

To assess advanced communication skills among second-year medical students exposed either to a computer simulation (MPathic-VR) featuring virtual humans, or to a multimedia computer-based learning module, and to understand each group’s experiences and learning preferences.

Methods

A single-blinded, mixed methods, randomized, multisite trial compared MPathic-VR (N = 210) to computer-based learning (N = 211). Primary outcomes: communication scores during repeat interactions with MPathic-VR’s intercultural and interprofessional communication scenarios and scores on a subsequent advanced communication skills objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes. Secondary outcomes: student attitude surveys and qualitative assessments of their experiences with MPathic-VR or computer-based learning.

Results

MPathic-VR-trained students improved their intercultural and interprofessional communication performance between their first and second interactions with each scenario. They also achieved significantly higher composite scores on the OSCE than computer-based learning-trained students. Attitudes and experiences were more positive among students trained with MPathic-VR, who valued its providing immediate feedback, teaching nonverbal communication skills, and preparing them for emotion-charged patient encounters.

Conclusions

MPathic-VR was effective in training advanced communication skills and in enabling knowledge transfer into a more realistic clinical situation.

Practice implications

MPathic-VR’s virtual human simulation offers an effective and engaging means of advanced communication training.

Introduction

Communication is the most important component of the doctor-patient encounter [1], [2]. Evidence confirms that poor clinician communication skill is associated with lower levels of patient satisfaction, higher rates of complaints, poorer health outcomes, and an increased risk of malpractice claims [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Failure of empathic communication also results in unnecessary return visits, unnecessary and unwanted somatic treatments, excessive diagnostic testing, missed diagnoses, symptom amplification, and missed opportunities for reassurance and appropriate counseling [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

Communication between and across healthcare teams is also crucial for safe and effective patient care. Among healthcare professionals, communication failures in the hospital setting are consistently the most frequent contributors to sentinel events reported to the Joint Commission [22]. Reducing the potential for adverse patient events requires that interprofessional communication meet the same standard for empathy and respect as clinician-patient communication [23], [24], [25], [26].

Acknowledgment that good communication skills are essential for high quality, cost-effective, collegial, and safe medical practice [21], [27], [28], [29], [30] has led to widespread support for early introduction and training of communication skills in medical education [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. However, since communication between doctor and patient is a complex phenomenon with many different factors interacting simultaneously, [1], [36] effective communication assessment and training is correspondingly complex. Communication involves both cognitive and affective domains, and is mediated through verbal and nonverbal channels [1], [37], [38]. Over the past 60 years, various coding methods have been developed to analyze the many elements of medical encounters. Although these methods can provide a detailed understanding of communication dynamics, they are resource-intensive, logistically challenging, and impractical for mainstream education [37], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Current teaching methods typically include small groups of learners, with a focus on role-playing with each other or with simulated patients. However, this is also resource-intensive, and with different trainers, discrepancies between groups can appear. Choosing the most suitable trainer for communication skills is difficult, as is the selection and training of simulated patients [52]. Finally, research on clinical communication training demonstrating efficacy and sustained effects is sparse [53]; most studies do not involve a comparison or control condition, and even fewer involve a randomized controlled trial [54]. These challenges underscore the need for the creation and study of practical, innovative methods to help learners master the complexity of healthcare communication, and develop excellent communication skills that will meet current and future competency-oriented accreditation standards [55].

MPathic-VR (an acronym derived from the grant Modeling Professionalism and Teaching Humanistic Communication in Virtual Reality, NIH 5R44TR000360-04/2R44CA141987-02) is a computer-based system designed to address this need. MPathic-VR teaches healthcare learners to handle challenging conversations by enabling them to talk with virtual humans. MPathic-VR’s virtual humans are intelligent conversational agents with human appearance and the capacity to interact using a wide range of communication behaviors that one would expect in face-to-face conversation between humans [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. As learners talk with virtual humans, they are challenged to interpret the virtual humans’ verbal and nonverbal communication, and respond with communication strategies that drive desired outcomes. MPathic-VR records and stores learners’ conversational choices and nonverbal behaviors. Analyses of these data drive assessment and feedback functions, and enable real-time variation of virtual human behavior during the simulation.

Creating an effective learning experience required taking many factors into account. These include: building the backbone of the system on specific communication skill learning objectives and techniques identified in the medical literature, creating an experiential-based learning environment sufficiently similar to the real challenges that learners face, providing appropriate feedback in a timely fashion, providing encouragement to the learner, supporting reflection and practice, and considering characteristics that facilitate transfer.

As a foundation, MPathic-VR was designed to provide learners with a toolkit of useful skills [61]. Each conversational exchange between the learners and virtual humans is based on learning objectives directed at specific communication skills including: reflective listening, empathy enhancers, avoiding empathy blockers, appropriate use of facial expression (i.e., brow raises, smiles) or body language (i.e., nodding, body lean), which support the development of rapport [62]. Learning objectives were also drawn from established communication protocols, such as SPIKES [63], CRASH [64], and TeamSTEPPS [65], [66]. SPIKES (Set-up, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge, Emotion, Summary) emphasizes principles for breaking bad news, CRASH (Culture, Respect, Assess and Sensitivity and Self-awareness, Humility) emphasizes principles of cultural competence, and TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety) emphasizes principles for effective interprofessional communication. These skills align with many of those detailed in the Calgary-Cambridge guide [67], [68], but the MPathic-VR virtual human simulation is not solely skills-based. It also allows for creativity, because learners can view themselves in conversation with virtual humans and repeat interactions, during which they are free to experiment with different dialogue, expressions, and body language [69]. The system also encourages reflection during (reflection-in-action) and after (reflection-on-action) their interaction with virtual humans, guided by theories first introduced by Dewey [70] and advanced by Argyris and Shön [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], as a means to promote the development of adaptive expertise [78], [79], [80]. This acknowledges calls for integrating reflection into communication training [61].

These elements are incorporated within a simulation-based medical education (SBME) framework for effective learning, elements of which include context authenticity, consistent and precise measurement that informs individualized learner feedback, appropriate simulation fidelity, sequence of instruction, and opportunity for deliberate practice [81], [82], [83], [84]. The system is grounded in the theory of multimedia learning [85], which holds that people learn better through words and pictures than through either alone. Last, it is further guided by an interactive instructional approach [86], [87] that stresses a dynamic relationship between the learner and the learning system, and integrates system-based elements that have the potential to engage the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional activities of the learner. This contrasts to other multimedia learning activities that might be termed interactive, but do not consider the integration of these components.

For the Print Version of this Article: To demonstrate MPathic-VR in use, a video component is available. The link to the demonstration video is incorporated into the caption of the image visible below.

For the Electronic Version of this article: To demonstrate MPathic-VR in use, a video component is available and accompanies the electronic version of this manuscript. To access this video component, simply click on the image visible below.

To examine whether MPathic-VR is useful for teaching advanced communication skills, the investigators developed and tested the following hypotheses: 1) students randomized to learn with MPathic-VR would improve their communication performance after engaging in a communication scenario, receiving feedback on their performance, and then applying the feedback in a second run-through of the scenario; and 2) knowledge acquired through MPathic-VR would be resilient (i.e., students would incorporate learned materials into their manner of communication), and that the performance of MPathic-VR-trained students assessed in a subsequent advanced communication objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) would be scored higher than students trained with a conventional, widely-used multimedia method, computer-based learning (CBL). The investigators also asked the mixed methods research question, how do qualitative findings from students’ reflective comments and responses to an attitudinal survey compare for the MPathic-VR and the CBL experiences?

Section snippets

Design

Investigators conducted a single-blinded, mixed methods, randomized controlled trial at three medical schools. Framed by an ethnographic approach, investigators researched students’ experiences when taking the modules. The Institutional Review Boards of all participating medical schools approved this research.

Setting

The studies were conducted at three US medical schools: Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS); the University of Michigan Medical School (UM); and the University of Virginia School of

Demographic characteristics

The MPathic-VR group (N = 210) had a mean age of 25.4 years (SD = 2.6) with 104 (49.5%) females, and race distribution of 117 (55.7%) Caucasian-American, 45 (21.4%) Asian-American, 14 (6.7%) African-American, 2 (1%) Native-American/indigenous people, and 32 (15.2%) other/no response. The CBL control (N = 211) had a mean age of 25.5 years (SD = 2.9), with 94 (44.5%) females, and race distribution of 112 (53.1%) Caucasian-American, 40 (19.0%) Asian-American, 25 (11.8%) African-American, (1) 0.5%

Discussion

This study assessed the usefulness of a virtual human simulation, as embodied in MPathic-VR, for teaching advanced communication skills to second-year medical students. The investigators’ first hypothesis was that students who interacted with MPathic-VR, received feedback, and immediately applied that knowledge in a second run-through would show an improvement in scores. The results confirm this hypothesis. Students’ scores were nearly halved (i.e., they chose more appropriate statements) and

Funding/support

This research was conducted as part of an SBIR I grant, “Modeling Professional Attitudes and Teaching Humanistic Communication in VR” National Cancer Institute, (NCI) Project ID 1R43CA141987-01 (Co-PIs Frederick Kron and Michael Fetters), and an SBIR II grant, “Modeling Professional Attitudes and Teaching Humanistic Communication in Virtual Reality” sponsored by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Project ID 2 R44 CA141987-02A1, (Co-PIs Frederick Kron and Michael

Other disclosures

Frederick Kron serves as president and Michael Fetters has stock options in Medical Cyberworlds, Inc., the entity receiving SBIR II grant funds for this project—the University of Michigan Conflict of Interest Office considered potential for conflict of interest, and concluded that no formal management plan was required.

Ethical approval

This research was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Boards of all three participating medical schools.

Disclaimer

None

Previous presentations

  • 1.

    The 13th International Conference on Communication in Healthcare, Poster Presentation October 2015.

  • 2.

    The 43rd North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting, Oral Presentation, October 2015.

Acknowledgements

This research could not have been possible without the support of many individuals across multiple institutions: Consultants – Paul Ekman, Erika Rosenberg, Michael Chmilar; Eastern Virginia Medical School – C. Donald Combs, Mekbib Gemeda, Thomas Hubbard; University of Michigan – Stacie Buckler, Michael Lukela, Kelly Poszywak, Joel Purkiss, Sally Santen, Jamie Schingeck; University of Virginia – Leslie Blackhall, Randy Canterbury, Anne Chapin, Francis Nelson, Norman Oliver; National Cancer

References (150)

  • S. Domagk et al.

    Interactivity in multimedia learning: an integrated model

    Comput. Human Behav.

    (2010)
  • J. Hampton et al.

    Relative contributions of history-taking, physical examination, and laboratory investigation to diagnosis and management of medical outpatients

    BMJ

    (1975)
  • G.B. Hickson et al.

    Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (1992)
  • G.B. Hickson et al.

    Obstetricians’ prior malpractice experience and patients’ satisfaction with care

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (1994)
  • W. Levinson et al.

    Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons

    JAMA

    (1997)
  • G.B. Hickson et al.

    Medical malpractice: external influences and controls, Part 1: development of an early identification and response model of malpractice prevention

    Law Contemp. Probl.

    (1997)
  • M.C. Peterson et al.

    Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses

    West. J. Med.

    (1992)
  • R. Tamblyn et al.

    Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities

    JAMA

    (2007)
  • F.A. Sloan et al.

    Medical malpractice experience of physicians. Predictable or haphazard?

    JAMA

    (1989)
  • M.A. Papadakis et al.

    Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2005)
  • P.J. Moore et al.

    Medical malpractice: the effect of doctor-patient relations on medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions

    West. J. Med.

    (2000)
  • N.D. Kohatsu et al.

    Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case-control study

    Arch. Intern. Med.

    (2004)
  • G.B. Hickson et al.

    Patient complaints and malpractice risk

    JAMA

    (2002)
  • P. Franks et al.

    Are patients’ ratings of their physicians related to health outcomes?

    Ann. Fam. Med.

    (2005)
  • K. Fiscella et al.

    Patient trust: is it related to patient-centered behavior of primary care physicians?

    Med. Care

    (2004)
  • R.R. Bovbjerg et al.

    The relationship between physicians’ malpractice claims history and later claims. Does the past predict the future?

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • H.B. Beckman et al.

    The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions

    Arch. Intern. Med.

    (1994)
  • L.M. Baldwin et al.

    Characteristics of physicians with obstetric malpractice claims experience

    Obstet. Gynecol.

    (1991)
  • R.M. Epstein et al.

    Could this be something serious?

    J. Gen. Intern. Med.

    (2007)
  • The Joint Commission, Sentinel Event Root Cause and Trend Data, Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s...
  • D.M. Woods et al.

    Improving clinical communication and patient safety: clinician-recommended solutions

  • L.L. Leape

    Patient safety in the era of healthcare reform

    Clin. Orthop.

    (2015)
  • L.L. Leape

    The checklist conundrum

    New Engl. J. Med.

    (2014)
  • Lucian Leape Institute Roundtable on Reforming Medical Education, Unmet Needs: Teaching Physicians to Provide Safe...
  • R.M. Epstein et al.

    Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care

    Health Aff. (Millwood)

    (2010)
  • S. Hawken

    Good communication skills: benefits for doctors and patients

    N. Z. Fam. Phys.

    (2005)
  • W. Levinson et al.

    Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care

    Health Aff. (Millwood)

    (2010)
  • W. Levinson et al.

    Patient-physician communication: it's about time

    JAMA

    (2011)
  • L.T. Kohn et al.

    To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System

    (2000)
  • B.D. Smedley et al.

    Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare

    (2003)
  • Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), Functions and Structure of a Medical School,...
  • T.J. Nasca et al.

    The next GME accreditation system–rationale and benefits

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2012)
  • S.G. Henry et al.

    Video elicitation interviews: a qualitative research method for investigating physician-patient interactions

    Ann. Fam. Med.

    (2012)
  • W.A. Beach

    Conversation analysis

  • L. Meredith et al.

    Patient-centered communication scoring method report on nine coded interviews

    Health Commun.

    (2001)
  • A. Shaikh et al.

    The use of a verbal response mode coding system in determining patient and physician roles in medical interviews

    Health Commun.

    (2001)
  • R.L. Street et al.

    Analyzing patient participation in medical encounters

    Health Commun.

    (2001)
  • P. Ekman et al.

    What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies of Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)

    (1997)
  • J. Brown et al.

    Assessing Communication Between Patients and Doctors: a Manual for Scoring Patient-centred Communication #95-2

    (1995)
  • W.B. Stiles

    Describing Talk: A Taxonomy of Verbal Response Modes

    (1992)
  • Cited by (77)

    • Using Simulation to Improve Communication Skills

      2024, Nursing Clinics of North America
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text