Child pages
  • Profile: 3. Preceptor-reviewed simulations - deprecated
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. We need to clarify what is meant by this set of activities. How is this different from Scenarios, Standardized Patients etc? Do we need another Profile for when a Preceptor is involved? Or am I misinterpreting the intent of this suggested Profile? 

  2. Hi, David. Maybe part of the question is how are we defining preceptor. I've seen Standardized Patient activities where the only involved persons are the student and the standardized patient (thinking about some of Christof Daetwyler's work on web-based SP interactions where there is no instructor observing). Or maybe I am being too academic. When I think about the function of a preceptor, I think about observation, so maybe the verbs would be the same no matter who was observing (SP or what we would normally think of as a preceptor). I think the key is that we want to be able to capture the observation of clinical activity or simulated clinical activity. If I observe you taking the patient's pulse, how do we want to capture that? Who is the actor, the observer or the learner, and how do we want to represent the observer and act of observation? There is a checklist profile that addresses these questions - we may be able to leverage that: https://registry.tincanapi.com/#profile/20 

  3. Thanks, Valerie, you raise a number of interesting points with this. 

    1. It somewhat suggests to be that, rather than the need for a separate Profile, we may need to think about who the Actor is, and how the context might be better described in the Object clause. 
    2. It also raises the question about what is really the activity of interest. For example, if I as a teacher observe a student performing a procedure, the true action is David Observed Student (performing procedure); however, usually the activity of interest is Student Performed Procedure (which was observed by David, using remote video). 
    3. Now there will be times when it is important to indicate how the data was captured, if it is not obvious, but I think that this is usually done within the context of the Object clause, or other parts of the Object. For example, there can be a difference between Student Measured BP (as captured by SimMan software, from sensor in mannekin), and Student Measured BP (as observed by team facilitator, subjectively, with limited ability in a busy scenario to determine whether it was done properly or accurately). 
    4. There are times when a Verb might be better to describe a facilitator action or mentoring or guiding. eg. Student Requested BP; Facilitator Responded "BP was normal"; External Assessor Commented "student should actually measure the BP, not just ask for it". i.e. as a corrective activity on the process flow of the simulation, rather than as a corrective action on the data itself. But you can accommodate this by such Verbs within existing Profiles (we have a couple already - we may need more). 

    In summary to all of this, I'm not quite sure that at this point we need a specific Profile for 'Preceptor-reviewed'. Happy to open up the discussion if we need to.