Simulation is widely used to teach medical procedures. Our goal was to develop and implement an innovative virtual model to teach resident physicians the cognitive skills of type 1 and type 2 diabetes management.
Methods:
A diabetes educational activity was developed consisting of (a) a curriculum using 18 explicit virtual cases, (b) a web-based interactive interface, (c) a simulation model to calculate physiologic outcomes of resident actions, and (d) a library of programmed feedback to critique and guide resident actions between virtual encounters. Primary care residents in 10 U.S. residency programs received the educational activity. Satisfaction and changes in knowledge and confidence in managing diabetes were analyzed with mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.
Results:
Pre- and post-education surveys were completed by 92/142 (65%) of residents. Likert scale (five-point) responses were favorably higher than neutral for general satisfaction (94%), recommending to colleagues (91%), training adequacy (91%), and navigation ease (92%). Finding time to complete cases was difficult for 50% of residents. Mean ratings of knowledge (on a five-point scale) posteducational activity improved by +0.5 (p < .01) for use of all available drug classes, +0.9 (p < .01) for how to start and adjust insulin, +0.8 (p < .01) for interpreting blood glucose values, +0.8 (p < .01) for individualizing treatment goals, and +0.7 (p < .01) for confidence in managing diabetes patients.
Conclusions:
A virtual diabetes educational activity to teach cognitive skills to manage diabetes to primary care residents was successfully developed, implemented, and well liked. It significantly improved self-assessed knowledge and confidence in diabetes management.
SaydahSHFradkinJCowieCC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA. 2004; 291 (3): 335–42.
2.
SpannSJNuttingPAGalliherJMPetersonKAPavlikVNDickinsonLMVolkRJ. Management of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting: A practice-based research network study. Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4 (1): 23–31.
3.
BergerJEAhmannAJBalfourDCOwensGSBeltranRBushMACulpepperLOwensGSRingelMWeltyFK. Treating to target: Implementing an effective diabetes care paradigm for managed care. Am J Manag Care. 2010; 16Suppl Treating: S4–35.
4.
PhillipsLSBranchWTCookCBDoyleJPEl-KebbiIMGallinaDLMillerCDZiemerDCBarnesCS. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135 (9): 825–34.
5.
SchmittdielJAUratsuCSKarterAJHeislerMSubramanianUMangioneCMSelbyJV. Why don't diabetes patients achieve recommended risk factor targets? Poor adherence versus lack of treatment intensification. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23 (5): 588–94.
6.
PeyrotMRubinRRLauritzenTSkovlundSESnoekFJMatthewsDRLandgrafRKleinebreilL; International DAWN Advisory Panel. Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers: Results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28 (11): 2673–9.
7.
WagnerEH. Chronic disease management: What will it take to improve care for chronic illness?Eff Clin Pract. 1998; 1 (1): 2–4.
8.
PhillipsLSZiemerDCDoyleJPBarnesCSKolmPBranchWTCaudleJMCookCBDunbarVGEl-KebbiIMGallinaDLHayesRPMillerCDRheeMKThompsonDMWatkinsC. An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: Improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28 (10): 2352–60.
9.
ZiemerDCMillerCDRheeMKDoyleJPWatkinsCJrCookCBGallinaDLEl-KebbiIMBarnesCSDunbarVGBranchWTJrPhillipsLS. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting. Diabetes Educ. 2005; 31 (4): 564–71.
10.
DarerJDHwangWPhamHHBassEBAndersonG. More training needed in chronic care: A survey of US physicians. Acad Med. 2004; 79 (6): 541–8.
11.
WilliamsonJCGlauserTANevinsPHSchneiderDKrugerDFUrquhartBSWhitfieldSFDuboisAM. Current practice patterns and identified educational needs of health care providers in managing patients with type 2 diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2013; 31 (1): 3–9.
12.
KnowlesM. Adult learning. In: CraigRL, ed. The ASTD training and development handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996, 253–64.
13.
GabaDM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004; 13Suppl 1: i2–10.
14.
LatorellaKPliskeRHuttonRChrenkaJ. Cognitive task analysis of business jet pilots' weather flying behaviors: Preliminary results. NASA/TM-2001-211034. July 2001.
15.
LeitchRAMosesGRMageeH. Simulation and the future of military medicine. Mil Med. 2002; 167 (4): 350–4.
PacsiAL. Human simulators in nursing education. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2008; 39 (2): 8–11.
18.
MichelsonJD. Simulation in orthopaedic education: An overview of theory and practice. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88 (6): 1405–11.
19.
LeCQLightnerDJVanderLeiLSeguraJWGettmanMT. The current role of medical simulation in american urological residency training programs: An assessment by program directors. J Urol. 2007; 177 (1): 288–91.
20.
WayneDBButterJSiddallVJFudalaMJLinquistLAFeinglassJWadeLDMcGaghieWC. Simulation-based training of internal medicine residents in advanced cardiac life support protocols: A randomized trial. Teach Learn Med. 2005; 17 (3): 210–6.
21.
LehmannED. Interactive educational diabetes simulators: A look to the future. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2000; 2 (3): 507–11.
22.
KaramanoukianRLKuJKDeLaRosaJKaramanoukianHLEvansGR. The effects of restricted work hours on clinical training. Am Surg. 2006; 72 (1): 19–21.
23.
HuangGReynoldsRCandlerC. Virtual patient simulation at US and Canadian medical schools. Acad Med. 2007; 82 (5): 446–51.
24.
WittichCMChutkaDSMauckKFBergerRALitinSCBeckmanTJ. Perspective: A practical approach to defining professional practice gaps for continuing medical education. Acad Med. 2012; 87 (5): 582–5.
25.
FoxRD. Revisiting “Discrepancy analysis in continuing medical education: A conceptual model” 1983. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011; 31 (1): 71–6.
26.
ChobanianAVBakrisGLBlackHRCushmanWCGreenLAIzzoJLJrJonesDWMatersonBJOparilSWrightJTJrRoccellaEJ; Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. Seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension. 2003; 42 (6): 1206–52.
27.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes-2012. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35Suppl 1: S11–63.
28.
Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Health care guideline: Diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. Minneapolis: Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement; 2010.
29.
National Institutes of Health; Department of Health and Human Services. Third report of the expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). 2004. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.htm.
30.
Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Health Care guideline: Lipid management in adults. Minneapolis: Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement; 2011.
SherifaliDNerenbergKPullenayegumEChengJEGersteinHC. The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33 (8): 1859–64.
35.
BolenSFeldmanLVassyJWilsonLYehHCMarinopoulosSWileyCSelvinEWilsonRBassEBBrancatiFL. Systematic review: Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147 (6): 386–99.
36.
LawMRWaldNJMorrisJKJordanRE. Value of low dose combination treatment with blood pressure lowering drugs: Analysis of 354 randomised trials. BMJ. 2003; 326 (7404): 1427.
37.
SharmaMAnsariM TAbou-SettaA MSoares-WeiserKOoiT CSearsMYazdiFTsertsvadzeAMoherD. Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness and Harms of Combinations of Lipid-Modifying Agents and High-Dose Statin Monotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151 (9).
38.
CookDAErwinPJTriolaMM. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010; 85 (10): 1589–602.
39.
SoumeraiSBMcLaughlinTJGurwitzJHGuadagnoliEHauptmanPJBorbasCMorrisNMcLaughlinBGaoXWillisonDJAsingerRGobelF. Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998; 279 (17): 1358–63.
40.
AvornJSoumeraiSB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing.” N Engl J Med. 1983; 308 (24): 1457–63.
41.
Sperl-HillenJMO'ConnorPJRushWAJohnsonPEGilmerTBiltzGAscheSEEkstromHL. Simulated physician learning program improves glucose control in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33 (8): 1727–33.
42.
O'ConnorPJSperl-HillenJMJohnsonPERushWAAscheSEDuttaPBiltzGR. Simulated physician learning intervention to improve safety and quality of diabetes care: A randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32 (4): 585–90.
