Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Student acceptability of human patient simulators in undergraduate OSCEs
  1. Craig William Brown,
  2. Jerry Charles Morse
  1. Clinical Skills Centre, University of Aberdeen, Institute of Education for Medical and Dental Sciences, Aberdeen, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Craig William Brown, Clinical Skills Office, Suttie Centre, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, AB25 2ZD, Aberdeen, UK; craig.brown{at}

Statistics from


For many years low-fidelity, medium-fidelity and high-fidelity simulation within various undergraduate healthcare professional (HCP) curricula has been widely used in the provision of clinical education. Part task trainers, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) manikins and human patient simulators (HPS) are now routinely used at varying stages of training to allow learners to practise the required skills in a ‘safe environment’. Similarly, many of these educational establishments will use the same part task trainers and CPR manikins to assess competency and performance of clinical skills. However, as the use of simulation in its various forms continues to rise in both undergraduate and postgraduate education, there still remains a sparsity of evidence with regard to its acceptance in undergraduate degree examinations.1

This paper describes the development and subsequent use of an anaphylaxis/cardiac arrest scenario in a final-year medicine objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and the postexamination student acceptability of including a simulation-based scenario in a high-stakes final-year examination.

Methods and station outline

The objectives of the examination station were to test the student’s ability to perform a logical and rapid patient assessment and demonstrate clinical decision making in a resuscitation situation. An anaphylactic reaction was chosen for the clinical situation, as all of the students had undertaken a similar scenario during their …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CWB and JCM designed the assessment station and the subsequent questionnaire. CWB and JCM contributed equally to the final manuscript.

  • Funding None.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Aberdeen University College of Medicine and Medical Sciences Ethical Review Board (CERB).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.