Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education
Open Access

The ongoing study is the first study in Sri Lanka to examine the quality, deficiencies and value of real patient and stimulated patients experiences in undergraduate clinical training from a student's perspective. We found that undergraduates emphasized both real patients and stimulated patients in their training. They found that they received a variety of things from stimulated patients and real patients, especially at different stages of the training program. These findings strengthen the prospects of different investigations seeking to uncover the value of different patient experiences in clinical education. Overall, preliminary research found that stimulated patients connections are viewed as good growth opportunities for scheduling real-life patients. Undergraduates generally felt that stimulated patients helped them develop their relationship skills and appreciated the criticisms stimulated patients expressed. They found there are two strengths and weaknesses in developing relationship skills with stimulated patients.

Communicating with stimulated patients was seen as more direct and less stressful than with the actual patient, but attempting to ignore clinical perspectives while communicating with stimulated patients was cited as a drawback. In this review, we found that undergraduates valued stimulated patients who generally gave fair and clear criticism of their relational skill acquisition. Additionally, secondary studies emphasized the use of stimulated patients during the preclinical phase of schooling. The review found that undergraduates valued having her stimulated patients experience and felt it prepared them for real-life patient experiences in a clinical setting. Nonetheless, this study revealed that undergraduates found the real-life patient experience more beneficial than the stimulated patient’s collaboration. In the medical staff at the University of Kelaniya, stimulated patients is commonly used to indicate interpersonal and procedural skills. In addition, undergraduates experience the use of stimulated patients in developmental assessments and summative assessments (such as OSCE stations). This study revealed that the usefulness of stimulated patients is generally limited to the acquisition of relational skills. In any case, the experience of stimulated patients has been used to demonstrate clinical perspectives such as clinical reasoning skills that atypically appear during preclinical studies where the excitement that benefits from stimulated patients appears to collapse on real patient presentations, can be used more appropriately. Stimulated patients can be incorporated into topic-based learning meetings (PBLs) and case talks, thereby reinvigorating stimulated patients-fuelled training. Understudies have demonstrated that efficacy is an integral part of the real patient experience. Anyway, research on the quality of stimulated patients compared to real patients seems uncertain so far.

The results of this study appear to contradict some exploratory findings, some of which indicate that real patients are real patients and not stimulated patients. Each participant in this study had an stimulated patients collaboration preceded by a real-life patient experience. As a result, their perspectives on experiences with stimulated patients or real patients may have been influenced in the long period after school due to their previous encounters with stimulated patients and their curiosity about their actual collaboration with patients. As such, it is worth exploring sophomore perspectives that were not one-sided because of previous encounters (e.g., first and sophomore clinical sophomores). Undergraduates also believed that real patient experience was more important than stimulated patients experience in acquiring practical assessment skills. This may be because Sri Lanka has too many patients to benefit from. Undergraduates are used to seeing many patients and have plenty of rehearsal opportunities. This finding is consistent with that of Janicik and partners, although some studies found state understudy stimulated patients to be more valuable and beneficial in developing real-world assessment skills. It has been. Following previous exploratory findings, study subjects indicated a preference for learning procedural skills from peers.

None.

None.