Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Virtual Patient Working Group Agenda
April 8, 2:50 PM – 3:35 PM

Attending: JB McGee, Nabil Zary (via skype), co-chairs; Susan Albright, Sunea Choi, Matt Cownie, Christof Daetwyler, Joanna Henning, John Jackson, Kira King, Andrzej Kononowicz, Violet Kulo, Simon Messer, Yanko Michea, Nick Martin, Olivier Petinaux,  Rosalyn Scott, Jan Spindler,  Manon Schladen, Gordon Tait, David Topps, Bert Vargas, Dale Vorhees, Luke Woodham, Stacy ___ (Georgetown),  Trevor ___, Michael ___,    .

1 Introductions

2 Overview of the working group’s work to date

JB reviewed that the group spent 5 years in active development creating the standard. A lot has changed since the standard was written. Content development is still a big part of our jobs. But the technology has moved to Web 2.0. And there is greater interest in knowing what the learner is doing.

3 Interest and scope for version 2

  • results? Tin Can API?
  • virtual worlds?
  • virtual physiological human integration?
  • Other?

How do we educate people to understand the value of standards? How do we extend virtual patients and connect with other systems? Should we modify the specification to work with existing standards, like the competency framework?

We can start with the implementation guide and enhance adoption. JB asked if Ip needs to be an issue. Was this case reviewed for copyright?

Dale commented that they use video cases. He’s not sure they are willing to give those away. JB clarified that sharing doesn’t always mean giving away.

Jan asked what information you would share across systems. How do you integrate with other learning activities and other standards? (Internal note – Use case development for v 2.0 may be a good next step.)

Rosalyn commented that you could incorporate links to other learning materials, activities that could be done with a task trainer. they are using virtual Patients as an introduction to simulation using mannequins. They put information in the medical records and present the background as a virtual patient.

JB commented that how we  connect current VPs to other systems to understand what the learner does is important. How it relates to requirements is important. Connecting with the Tin Can/Experience API could be useful. Should the working group pursue that?

Yanko commented that their goal was to share cases. they don’t exchange student information.

JB commented they may want detailed information about student activities. For example, this learner managed Congestive Heart failure at a level expected of a 3rd year resident.

Nabil commented that the standard was for describing VPs as content. In the field of simulation, virtual patients are an activity. Describing the interactions and describing the virtual patient itself are two different things. We can make it easier to connect with other specs and other types of simulation.

JB asked what data points are most important?Do we need the metadata about the disease of the virtual patient, or the timing and choices of the learner?

Susan replied that there is some work in progress that is relevant. the Curriculum Inventory is linking to the competency framework. that would be relevant if used in a medical school environment.

Mike commented he is interested in the microdetails, not just high fidelity simulation.

Simon cautioned that many VPs are asynchronous and interprofessional. there different outcomes and a different agenda. that could muddy the waters; for example, a learner may make a cup of tea and then come back to the virtual patient. We need to determine what is useful data to collect.

John commented that it would be useful to identify actions within a virtual patient that correlate to competencies. You may want to award credit  for certain virtual patient actions. You should be able to hand off information from a virtual patient to an e-portfolio.

4 Meeting schedule

5 Recruiting new working group members


  • No labels