McGaghue WC, Harris IB: Learning theory foundations of simulation-based mastery learning. Simul Healthc 13(suppl 1): S15, 2018.
Ross JG, Burrell SA: Standardized patient simulation to facilitate learning in evidence-based oncology symptom management. J Nurs Educ 57: 250, 2018.
Joshi A, Wragg A: Simulator training in interventional cardiology. Interv Cardiol 11: 70, 2016.
Alwaal A, Al-Qaoud TM, Haddad RL, et al.: Transfer of skills on LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator into the operating room in urology. Urol Ann 7: 172, 2015.
Dawe SR, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, et al.: A systematic review of surgical skills transfer after simulation-based training: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Ann Surg 259: 236, 2014.
Fleetwood VA, Veenstra B, Wojtowicz A, et al.: Communication through simulation: developing a curriculum to teach interpersonal skills. Surgery 164: 802, 2018.
Mendel S, Curtis D, Page JC: Interprofessional podiatric surgical simulation: a pilot study. JAPMA 105: 331, 2015.
Lewis KA, Ricks TN, Rowin A, et al.: Does simulation training for acute care nurses improve patient safety outcomes: a systematic review to inform evidenced-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 16: 389, 2019.
Pucher PH, Tamblyn R, Boorman D, et al.: Simulation research to enhance patient safety and outcomes: recommendations of the Simnovate Patient Safety Domain Group. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 3: S3, 2017.
Grollo A, Morphet A, Shields N: Simulation improves podiatry student skills and confidence in conservative sharp debridement on feet: a pilot randomized controlled trial. JAPMA 108: 466, 2018.
Wormald BW, Schoeman S, Somasunderam A, et al.: Assessment drives learning: an unavoidable truth? Anat Sci Educ 2: 199, 2009.
Wood T: Assessment not only drives learning, it may also help learning. Med Educ 43: 5, 2009.
Rudolph JW, Simon R, Rivard, P, et al.: Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin 25: 361, 2007.
Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, et al.: Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach 32: 638, 2010.
Kotsis SV, Chung KC: Application of the “see one, do one, teach one” concept in surgical training. Plast Reconstr Surg 131: 1194, 2013.
American Association of Medical Colleges: Future or fad? Virtual reality in medical education. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/future-or-fad-virtual-reality-medical-education. Accessed March 16, 2022.
Grenvik A, Schaefer JJ: From Resusci-Anne to Sim Man: the evolution of simulators in medicine. Crit Care Med 32: 556, 2004.
Denson J, Abrahamson S: A computer-controlled patient simulator. JAMA 208: 504, 1969.
Barrow H: An overview of the use of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. Acad Med 68: 443, 1993.
Wallace P: Following the threads of an innovation: the history of standardized patients in medical education. Caduceus 13: 5, 1997.
Anderson MB, Stillman PL, Wang Y: Growing use of standardized patients in teaching and evaluation in medical education. Teach Learn Med 6: 15, 1994.
Lewis KL, Bohnert C, Gammon WL, et al.: The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) standards of best practice (SOBP). Adv Simul (Lond) 2: 10, 2017.
Cleland J, Abe K, Rethans J: The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE Guide No 42. Med Teach 31: 477, 2009.
May W, Park J, Lee J: A ten-year review of the literature on the use of standardized patients in teaching and learning: 1996-2005. Med Teach 31: 487, 2009.
Nestel D, Tabak D, Tierney T, et al.: Key challenges in simulated patient programs: an international comparative case study. BMC Med Educ 11: 69, 2011.
Melnick DE, Dillon GF, Swanson DB: Medical licensing examinations in the United States. J Dent Educ 66: 595, 2002.
Tsichlis JT, Del Re AM, Carmody J: (August 13, 2021) The past, present, and future of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination. Cureus 13: e17157; doi:10.7759/cureus.17157.
National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. NBOME, Celebrating 85 Years of Commitment to Quality Health Care. Available at: https://www.nbome.org/85th/#:∼:text=In%202004%2C%20we%20created%20our,2004%20to%2012%20student%20candidates. Accessed March 16, 2022.
The National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, Candidate Information Bulletin, Part II Examination. Available at: https://www.apmle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2022-Part-II-CIB.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2022.
Errichetti A, Gimpel JR, Boulet JR: State of the art in standardized patient programs: a survey of osteopathic medical school. J Am Osteopath Assoc 102: 627, 2002.
Gimpel J, Weidner AC, Boulet JR, et al.: Standardized patients and mechanical simulators in teaching and assessment in schools of osteopathic medicine. J Am Osteopath Assoc 107: 557, 2007.
Niles D, Sutton RM, Donoghue A: “Rolling refreshers”: a novel approach to maintain CPR psychomotor skill competence. Resuscitation 80: 909, 2009.
Mahoney JM, Vardaxis V, Anwar N, et al.: Relationship between faculty and standardized patient assessment. JAPMA 106: 116, 2016.
Human and mechanical simulations are used to teach and assess clinical competencies in medical education. In 2014, the National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners implemented the Clinical Skills Patient Encounter, an examination using standardized patients. Similar clinical skills examinations already existed as part of medical and osteopathic licensure examinations. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of simulation-based education in the nine colleges of podiatric medicine in the United States to inform podiatric clinical faculty and other stakeholders about current trends within the podiatric education system. In 2019, the Clinical Skills Patient Encounter committee of the National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners developed a survey and contacted each podiatric school to voluntarily participate. The mailed survey instrument gathered information on patient simulation modalities, years used, clinical content application, simulation program administration, facilities and equipment available, and the role of simulation educators. All nine schools participated anonymously. The survey showed that simulation modalities were used in all of the schools during the first 3 years, although there was considerable variance in their use.