Teamwork and the interprofessional collaboration of all health professions are a guarantee of patient safety and highly qualified treatment in patient care. In the daily clinical routine, physicians and nurses must work together, but the education of the different health professions occurs separately in various places, mostly without interrelated contact. Such training abets mutual misunderstanding and cements professional protectionism, which is why interprofessional education can play an important role in dismantling such barriers to future cooperation. In this article, a pilot project in interprofessional education involving both medical and nursing students is presented, and the concept and the course of training are described in detail. The report illustrates how nursing topics and anatomy lectures can be combined for interprofessional learning in an early phase of training. Evaluation of the course showed that the students were highly satisfied with the collaborative training and believed interprofessional education (IPE) to be an important experience for their future profession and understanding of other health professionals. The results show that the IPE teaching concept, which combines anatomy and nursing topics, provides an optimal setting for learning together and helps nurses and doctors in training to gain knowledge about other health professionals' roles, thus evolving mutual understanding.

This study investigated the effectiveness of modules involving standardized patients and role-plays on training communication skills. The first module involved standardized patients and an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE); the second module consisted of peer role-plays and a written examination. A randomized posttest-only control group design with first-year nursing students was used. The intervention group received one-to-one communication training with direct oral feedback from the standardized patient. The control group had training with peer role-playing and mutual feedback. The posttest involved students' rating their self-efficacy, and real patients and clinical supervisors evaluated their communication skills. No significant differences were found between self-efficacy and patient ratings. However, the clinical supervisors rated the intervention group's communication skills to be significantly (p < 0.0001) superior. Assessments by clinical supervisors indicate that communication training modules including standardized patients and an OSCE are superior to communication training modules with peer role-playing.

No abstract

BackgroundIn the training of healthcare professionals, one of the advantages of communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is the SP's ability to provide direct feedback to students after a simulated clinical encounter. The quality of SP feedback must be monitored, especially because it is well known that feedback can have a profound effect on student performance. Due to the current lack of valid and reliable instruments to assess the quality of SP feedback, our study examined the validity and reliability of one potential instrument, the 'modified Quality of Simulated Patient Feedback Form' (mQSF).MethodsContent validity of the mQSF was assessed by inviting experts in the area of simulated clinical encounters to rate the importance of the mQSF items. Moreover, generalizability theory was used to examine the reliability of the mQSF. Our data came from videotapes of clinical encounters between six simulated patients and six students and the ensuing feedback from the SPs to the students. Ten faculty members judged the SP feedback according to the items on the mQSF. Three weeks later, this procedure was repeated with the same faculty members and recordings.ResultsAll but two items of the mQSF received importance ratings of > 2.5 on a four-point rating scale. A generalizability coefficient of 0.77 was established with two judges observing one encounter.ConclusionsThe findings for content validity and reliability with two judges suggest that the mQSF is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of feedback provided by simulated patients.

No abstract