Student standardized patients versus occupational standardized patients for improving clinical competency among TCM medical students: a 3-year prospective randomized study
Authors: Zeng Jinhao , Liang Shuang , Fu Xiaoxu , Guo Jing , Bai Yaolin , Zhou Shan , Du Quanyu , Wang Zhenxing , Zhang Xiyu , Peng Sihan , Wen Lijuan , Li Wenyuan , Li Bin , Yang Han , Zhang Yi 
Published: April 2023

Abstract
Background
Standardized patient (SP) simulations are well-recognized patterns for practicing clinical skills and interactions. Our previous study showed that a simulation program using occupational SP for Traditional Chinese Medicine (OSP-TCMs) was efficient, however, a high cost and time-intensive nature have limited its use. TCM postgraduates trained as student SPs (SSP-TCMs) present a potentially cost-effective alternative. The purpose of this study was to examine and determine whether SSP simulation offered more benefits over didactic training alone for improving clinical competency among TCM medical students, and conduct a multifaceted analysis comparing SSP-TCMs and OSP-TCMs.

Methods
This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Fourth-year TCM undergraduates were recruited as trainees from the Clinical Medical School, Chengdu University of TCM. Data were collected from September 2018 to December 2020. Trainees were randomly divided into the three following groups: traditional method training group, OSP-TCM training group, and SSP-TCM training group (1:1:1). At the end of a 10-week curriculum, trainees received a two-station examination comprising a systematic online knowledge test and an offline clinical performance examination. Post-training and post-exam questionnaires were administered to collect feedback from these trainees.

Results
Students assigned to the SSP-TCM training and OSP-TCM training groups received favorable marks for the “systematic knowledge test” and “TCM clinical skills” (2018, Pa=0.018, Pb=0.042; 2019, Pa=0.01, Pb=0.033; 2020, Pa=0.035, Pb=0.039) compared to the TM trainees. Additionally, trainees in the intervention groups demonstrated a positive post-training edge in scores of “medical records” (2018, Pa=0.042, Pb=0.034; 2019, Pa=0.032, Pb=0.042; 2020, Pa=0.026, Pb=0.03) and “TCM syndrome differentiation and therapeutic regimen” (2018, Pb=0.032; 2019, Pa=0.037, Pb=0.024; 2020, Pa=0.036, Pb=0.043). For the simulation encounter assessment given by SP-TCMs, OSP-TCM trainees and SSP-TCM trainees scored higher than TM trainees (2018, Pa=0.038, Pb=0.037; 2019, Pa=0.024, Pb=0.022; 2020, Pa=0.019, Pb=0.021). For the feedback questionnaires, the students in TM group provided less positive feedback for training efficacy and test performance compared to those in the SSP-TCM and OSP-TCM groups. The trainees responded that the training effect of clinical simulations was similar between the SSP-TCM and OSP-TCM groups. SSP-TCMs were more responsive to unexpected emergencies (Pa=0.022, Pb>0.05) and more likely to encourage questioning (Pa=0.029, Pb>0.05) but tended to provide implied hints (Pc=0.015) and utilize medical jargon (Pc=0.007) as compared to OSP-TCMs.

Conclusion
Simulation training for SSP-TCMs and OSP-TCMs showed great benefits for enhancing clinical competency. SSP-TCM simulation was feasible, practical, and cost-effective, and may serve as an alternative method to OSP-TCM simulation.