Innovative curriculum for second-year Harvard-MIT medical students: practicing communication skills with volunteer patients giving immediate feedback

Figures & data

Table 1 Communication skills exercise: objectives and goals for second year medical students

Objectives	Play the role of the primary physician communicating with the patient and addressing his or her concerns Receive feedback on their doctor–patient interaction from their peers, senior physicians, and patient teachers Discuss strategies for difficult conversations with their peers, senior physicians, and patient teachers Identify take home points from each case
Goals	Improve communication skills with patients Increase exposure to different physicians’ communication styles Gain direct feedback on communication skills from patients Develop strategies for difficult conversations

Table 2 Communication skills exercise: descriptive statistics of participant evaluations

Participant evaluations	Participants (n)	Overall, how would you rate today’s rounds?		How useful were the volunteer patients to your learning?
		Mean	Standard deviation	Mean	Standard deviation
2014, Group A	16	1.69	0.602	1.13	0.342
2014, Group B	16	1.25	0.577	1.31	0.793
2014, Combined	32	1.47	0.621	1.22	0.608
2015, Group A	15	1.00	0.000	1.00	0.000
2015, Group B	15	1.07	0.267	1.00	0.000
2015, Combined	30	1.03	0.183	1.00	0.000
2016, Group A	14	1.36	0.633	1.21	0.426
2016, Group B	16	1.19	0.403	1.19	0.403
2016, Combined	30	1.27	0.521	1.20	0.407

Notes: Group A and B represent the two halves of the class that participated in each separate year. Participants evaluated the exercise on a Likert scale with 1 being excellent, 2 being very good, 3 being good, 4 being fair, and 5 being poor.

Table 3 Communication skills exercise: distribution of responses

Participant responses	2014 (n=32)	2015 (n=30)	2016 (n=30)
Overall, how would you rate today’s rounds?
Excellent	59% (19)	97% (29)	77% (23)
Very good	34% (11)	3% (1)	20% (6)
Good	6% (2)	0	3% (1)
Only fair	0	0	0
Poor	0	0	0
Participant responses	2014 (n=32)	2015 (n=29)	2016 (n=30)
How useful were the volunteer patients to your learning?
Extremely	84% (27)	100% (29)	80% (24)
Very	12% (4)	0	20% (6)
Somewhat	0	0	0
Only mildly	3% (1)	0	0
Not useful	0	0	0

Table 4 Communication skills exercise: ANOVA analysis

Participant evaluations	Participants (n)	Overall, how would you rate today’s rounds?		How useful were the volunteer patients to your learning?
		Mean	Standard deviation	Mean	Standard deviation
2014	32	1.47	0.621	1.22	0.608
2015	30	1.03	0.183	1.00	0.000
2016	30	1.27	0.521	1.20	0.407
ANOVA		p=0.002		p=0.112
Bonferroni correction*		2014>2015, p=0.001

Notes: Participants evaluated the exercise on a Likert scale with 1 being excellent, 2 being very good, 3 being good, 4 being fair, and 5 being poor.

* Nonsignificant ANOVA does not need a Bonferroni correction.

Table 5 Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Health Sciences and Technology (HST) course ratings for academic years 2013/2014 through 2015/2016

HST courses	Academic year 2013/2014	Academic year 2014/2015	Academic year 2015/2016
Introduction to clinical medicine	1.96	1.68	1.21
Communication skills exercise*	1.47	1.03	1.27
Year 2, course 2	1.36	1.39	1.21
Year 2, course 3	2.10	1.52	1.77
Year 2, course 4	2.11	1.50	1.48
Year 2, course 5	2.20	3.59	1.69
Year 2, course 6	2.24	2.07	1.80
Year 2, course 7	2.43	1.41	1.93
Year 2, course 8	2.44	2.62	1.94
Year 2, course 9	2.76	1.90	1.83

Notes:

* Communication skills exercise is part of the introduction to clinical medicine course. Participants evaluated the exercise on a Likert scale with 1 being excellent, 2 being very good, 3 being good, 4 being fair, and 5 being poor.