Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:51:47.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can You Teach Clinical Communication Virtually?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Adam Montgomery*
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Faeez Ramjan
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Alistair Cannon
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Sae Kohara
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Chloe Saunders
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Deekshitha Umasankar
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Lois Zac-Williams
Affiliation:
King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Sophie Butler
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

An extracurricular clinical communication course called PsychED Up, with a focus on Psychiatry, met with challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated social distancing requirements. The course is usually delivered face-to-face by a small team of doctors, medical students, actors and lived-experience practitioners, and consists of large-group teaching on a weekly topic, followed by small group simulations. A small-scale study was performed to evaluate whether conducting clinical communication teaching and simulation online was acceptable, effective and feasible.

Methods

Twelve students and ten faculty members participated in the online session, performing live clinical scenarios with simulated patients, over a two-hour period. Pre-and post-course questionnaires were designed with quantitative measures of confidence and qualitative questions about participants’ experience. Eight students completed both questionnaires. Questionnaire answers were analysed using a mixed-methods approach, with themes identified from the qualitative long answers, and statistical analysis of quantitative answers was also performed.

Results

Students found the session beneficial, with all indicating that they would sign up for a full online course. Based on answers to the quantitative questions, 50% of students felt more prepared for their clinical examinations. (p = 0.046). However, all participants noted a reduction in their ability to read non-verbal cues and body language. Returning students found they were less attentive during the session compared with the original face-to-face teaching (p = 0.05). Actors and faculty members found that the online course was feasible, acceptable and effective. However, most agreed that it was not preferable to teaching clinical communication skills face to face. Technological issues were minimal.

Conclusion

The majority of students and faculty found the session both beneficial and enjoyable, but felt face to face sessions would be more helpful in teaching clinical communication. Student attentiveness and awareness of non-verbal cues were highlighted as concerns. However, students generally responded positively to the online course, particularly the quality and diversity of peer feedback. Teaching clinical communication virtually has the potential to be successful, and has implications for future undergraduate medical teaching.

Type
Rapid-Fire Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.