Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec;81(10):6120.
doi: 10.5688/ajpe6120.

Cost-Effectiveness of Using Standardized Patients to Assess Student-Pharmacist Communication Skills

Chris Gillette  1 , Robert B Stanton  2 , Nicole Rockich-Winston  2 , Michael Rudolph  2 , H Glenn Anderson Jr  2
Affiliations

Cost-Effectiveness of Using Standardized Patients to Assess Student-Pharmacist Communication Skills

Chris Gillette et al. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Objective. To explore the cost-effectiveness of including standardized patients (SP) in the didactic curriculum for application and assessment of students' pharmacist-patient communication skills. Methods. Five role play/case study (RP/CS) activities from a communication skills curriculum were replaced with five SP encounters. Communication was assessed using a rubric. This study developed an economic model to examine the costs and effectiveness of replacing RP/CS events with SP events in knowledge-application and communication assessment. Costs consisted of SP hourly wages for training and delivery of SP events. Outcomes examined were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per student. Results. The ICER comparing SP to RP/CS was $100.93 higher per student on first-attempt pass rates and $9.04 per one-point increase in the mean score. Conclusion. SP was more effective and more costly than RP/CS. Further research into students' willingness to pay needs to occur before determining if using SPs is cost-effective in teaching communication skills.

Keywords: communication; prescription medications; standardized patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Course Delivery Differences between Cohorts 1 & 2 (Role-play/case study) versus Cohort 3 (standardized patient event).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and key elements for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the doctor of pharmacy degree. Standards 2016. https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/Standards2016FINAL.pdf. 2015. Accessed October 21, 2016.
    1. Vyas D, Bray BS, Wilson MN. Use of simulation based teaching methodologies in US colleges and schools of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77(3):Article 53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Passiment M, Sacks H, Huang G. Medical simulation in medical education: results of an AAMC survey. https://www.aamc.org/download/259760/data. 2011. Accessed October 21, 2016.
    1. Oh PJ, Jeon KD, Koh MS. The effects of simulation-based learning utilizing standardized patients in nursing students: a meta-analysis. Nurs Educ Today. 2015;35(5):e6–e15. - PubMed
    1. Love DW, Wiese HJ, Henson RE, Parker CL. Teaching interviewing skills to pharmacy residents. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1978;35(9):1073–1074. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources