Cited by 624Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical Education

Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps

Cook, David A, Triola, Marc M·2009·Medical Education

Abstract

Context The opposing forces of increased training expectations and reduced training resources have greatly impacted health professions education. Virtual patients (VPs), which take the form of interactive computer‐based clinical scenarios, may help to reconcile this paradox. Methods We summarise research on VPs, highlight the spectrum of potential variation and identify an agenda for future research. We also critically consider the role of VPs in the educational armamentarium. Results We propose that VPs’ most unique and cost‐effective function is to facilitate and assess the development of clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning in experts involves a non‐analytical process that matures through deliberate practice with multiple and varied clinical cases. Virtual patients are ideally suited to this task. Virtual patients can also be used in learner assessment, but scoring rubrics should emphasise non‐analytical clinical reasoning rather than completeness of information or algorithmic approaches. Potential variations in VP design are practically limitless, yet few studies have rigorously explored design issues. More research is needed to inform instructional design and curricular integration. Conclusions Virtual patients should be designed and used to promote clinical reasoning skills. More research is needed to inform how to effectively use VPs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Maintaining virtual patients' utility requires continuous updates to reflect evolving clinical standards.

    “maintaining their utility requires continuous updates to reflect evolving clinical standards17–20.”
  • Virtual patients effectively foster intrinsic motivation and baseline clinical reasoning competence.

    “While VPs effectively foster intrinsic motivation and baseline clinical reasoning competence”
  • Systematic reviews include studies where the virtual patient has been compared with other strategies and showed positive results against traditional lectures and even standardized patients, but evidence is not conclusive and heterogeneity of the data suggests that more research is needed.

    “Moreover, it is possible to find systematic reviews that include studies where VP has been compared with some of those strategies and where it showed positive results against traditional lectures and even standardized patients, but evidence is not [7] conclusive and heterogeneity of the data suggest that more research is needed [7, 26, 29].”
  • The educational use of digital patients can complement learners' clinical experiences through experiential learning theory, providing a mechanism for information gathering and clinical decision-making in a safe environment.

    “The educational use of digital patients can complement learners’ clinical experiences through experiential learning theory, providing a mechanism for information gathering and clinical decision-making in a safe environment [37].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Cook, David A
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-18
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
303-311
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2036488299
Cited by
624
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 45
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
virtual patients, clinical reasoning, clinical reasoning assessment, student assessment, rubric development, instructional design, curriculum integration, health professions education, deliberate practice, training materials
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Patient Simulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review