The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a massive adaptation in health professions education, with a shift from inperson learning activities to a sudden heavy reliance on internet-mediated education. Some health professions schools will have already had considerable educational technology and cultural infrastructure in place, making such a shift more of a different emphasis in provision. For others, this shift will have been a considerable dislocation for both educators and learners in the provision of education. To aid educators make this shift effectively, this 12 Tips article presents a compendium of key principles and practical recommendations that apply to the modalities that make up online learning. The emphasis is on design features that can be rapidly implemented and optimised for the current pandemic. Where applicable, we have pointed out how these short-term shifts can also be beneficial for the long-term integration of educational technology into the organisations' infrastructure. The need for adaptability on the part of educators and learners is an important over-arching theme. By demonstrating these core values of the health professions school in a time of crisis, the manner in which the shift to online learning is carried out sends its own important message to novice health professionals who are in the process of developing their professional identities as learners and as clinicians.

BackgroundThe term “virtual patients” (VPs) has been used for many years in academic publications, but its meaning varies, leading to confusion. Our aim was to investigate and categorize the use of the term “virtual patient” and then classify its use in healthcare education.MethodsA literature review was conducted to determine all articles using the term “virtual patient” in the title or abstract. These articles were categorized into: Education, Clinical Procedures, Clinical Research and E-Health. All educational articles were further classified based on a framework published by Talbot et al. which was further developed using a deductive content analysis approach.Results536 articles published between 1991 and December 2013 were included in the study. From these, 330 were categorized as educational. Classifying these showed that 37% articles used VPs in the form of Interactive Patient Scenarios. VPs in form of High Fidelity Software Simulations (19%) and Virtual Standardized Patients (16%) were also frequent. Less frequent were other forms, such as VP Games.Analyzing the literature across time shows an overall trend towards the use of Interactive Patient Scenarios as the predominant form of VPs in healthcare education.ConclusionsThe main form of educational VPs in the literature are Interactive Patient Scenarios despite rapid technical advances that would support more complex applications. The adapted classification provides a valuable model for VP developers and researchers in healthcare education to more clearly communicate the type of VP they are addressing avoiding misunderstandings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0296-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

As best practice we recommend a voluntary integration strategy combined with exam-relevance of the content. The assets and drawbacks of all described strategies are discussed in the conclusions of this article.

BackgroundMedical knowledge encompasses both conceptual (facts or “what” information) and procedural knowledge (“how” and “why” information). Conceptual knowledge is known to be an essential prerequisite for clinical problem solving. Primarily, medical students learn from textbooks and often struggle with the process of applying their conceptual knowledge to clinical problems. Recent studies address the question of how to foster the acquisition of procedural knowledge and its application in medical education. However, little is known about the factors which predict performance in procedural knowledge tasks. Which additional factors of the learner predict performance in procedural knowledge?MethodsDomain specific conceptual knowledge (facts) in clinical nephrology was provided to 80 medical students (3rd to 5th year) using electronic flashcards in a laboratory setting. Learner characteristics were obtained by questionnaires. Procedural knowledge in clinical nephrology was assessed by key feature problems (KFP) and problem solving tasks (PST) reflecting strategic and conditional knowledge, respectively.ResultsResults in procedural knowledge tests (KFP and PST) correlated significantly with each other. In univariate analysis, performance in procedural knowledge (sum of KFP+PST) was significantly correlated with the results in (1) the conceptual knowledge test (CKT), (2) the intended future career as hospital based doctor, (3) the duration of clinical clerkships, and (4) the results in the written German National Medical Examination Part I on preclinical subjects (NME-I). After multiple regression analysis only clinical clerkship experience and NME-I performance remained independent influencing factors.ConclusionsPerformance in procedural knowledge tests seems independent from the degree of domain specific conceptual knowledge above a certain level. Procedural knowledge may be fostered by clinical experience. More attention should be paid to the interplay of individual clinical clerkship experiences and structured teaching of procedural knowledge and its assessment in medical education curricula.

In the context of using electronic flashcards, repetitive testing is a more potent learning strategy than repetitive studying for short-term but not long-term knowledge retention in clinical medical students. Although students use testing as a learning strategy, they seem to be unaware of its superiority in supporting short-term knowledge retention.