Display options
Cite
Lee A, Abdulhussein D, Fallaha M, et al. Whole consultation simulation in undergraduate surgical education: a breast clinic case study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):305doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x.
Lee, A., Abdulhussein, D., Fallaha, M., Buckeldee, O., Morrice, R., & Leedham-Green, K. (2021). Whole consultation simulation in undergraduate surgical education: a breast clinic case study. BMC medical education, 21(1), 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x
Lee, Alice, et al. "Whole consultation simulation in undergraduate surgical education: a breast clinic case study." BMC medical education vol. 21,1 (2021): 305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x
Lee A, Abdulhussein D, Fallaha M, Buckeldee O, Morrice R, Leedham-Green K. Whole consultation simulation in undergraduate surgical education: a breast clinic case study. BMC Med Educ. 2021 May 28;21(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x. PMID: 34049545; PMCID: PMC8164306.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med Educ. 2021 May 28;21(1):305. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x.

Whole consultation simulation in undergraduate surgical education: a breast clinic case study.

BMC medical education

Alice Lee, Dalia Abdulhussein, Mohammad Fallaha, Olivia Buckeldee, Rory Morrice, Kathleen Leedham-Green

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. [email protected].
  2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
  3. Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
  4. Medical Education Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.

PMID: 34049545 PMCID: PMC8164306 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-02757-x

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective clinical outcomes (SECO) clinics enable medical students to integrate clinical knowledge and skills within simulated environments. This realistic format may better prepare students for clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate how simulated surgical clinics based on the SECO framework aligned with students' educational priorities in comparison with didactic tutorials.

METHODS: We delivered two breast surgery SECO-based simulated clinics to Year 3 students during their surgical attachments at a London teaching hospital. All students attended a didactic breast surgery tutorial the previous week. Pre- and post-session surveys and post-session debriefs were used to explore learning gain, processes, preferences and impacts on motivation to learn. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to categorise student views into themes.

RESULTS: Seventeen students enrolled in the simulated clinics and debriefs. Students expressed that passing examinations was a key extrinsic motivating factor, although the SECO-based format appeared to shift their motivation for learning towards aspiring to be clinically competent. Self-reported confidence in clinical skills such as history taking and examination improved significantly. Active learning methods were valued. Students expressed a preference for simulated clinics to complement, but not replace, tutorial-based learning.

CONCLUSION: The SECO-based simulated clinic promoted a shift towards intrinsic motivation for learning by allowing students to recognise the importance of preparing for clinical practice in addition to passing examinations. Integration of surgical simulated clinics into the undergraduate curriculum could facilitate acquisition of clinical skills through active learning, a method highly valued by students.

Keywords: Breast; Medical education; SECO; Simulation; Surgery; Undergraduate

References

  1. ANZ J Surg. 2001 Feb;71(2):108-13 - PubMed
  2. Med Educ Online. 2018 Dec;23(1):1497373 - PubMed
  3. Med Teach. 2013 Oct;35(10):e1511-30 - PubMed
  4. Med Educ. 2016 Oct;50(10):997-1014 - PubMed
  5. Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Sep;56(530):722-3 - PubMed
  6. BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 29;8(8):e023146 - PubMed
  7. J Surg Educ. 2014 Sep-Oct;71(5):662-7 - PubMed
  8. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000 Jan;25(1):54-67 - PubMed
  9. Med Teach. 2015;37(10):949-54 - PubMed
  10. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jan 13;20(1):12 - PubMed
  11. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(2):155-8 - PubMed
  12. J Surg Educ. 2007 Sep-Oct;64(5):250-5 - PubMed
  13. Med Teach. 2020 Aug;42(8):846-854 - PubMed
  14. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016 Oct 11;3: - PubMed
  15. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Oct 21;14:223 - PubMed
  16. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 Mar;21(1):63-77 - PubMed
  17. Int J Surg. 2005;3(1):87-92 - PubMed
  18. Perspect Med Educ. 2013 May 3;: - PubMed
  19. Med Educ. 2004 Jan;38(1):32-8 - PubMed
  20. Med Teach. 2015 Feb;37(2):181-8 - PubMed
  21. Acad Med. 2011 Jun;86(6):706-11 - PubMed
  22. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016 Dec 28;8:31-32 - PubMed
  23. Int J Surg. 2005;3(2):151-7 - PubMed
  24. BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 10;10(3):e035948 - PubMed
  25. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Feb 10;17(1):37 - PubMed
  26. J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(2):266-72 - PubMed
  27. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016 Dec;40(4):446-453 - PubMed
  28. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Feb 6;17(1):33 - PubMed
  29. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jun 18;18(1):140 - PubMed
  30. Clin Teach. 2018 Jun;15(3):236-239 - PubMed
  31. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):988-94 - PubMed
  32. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):e242-62 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types