Introduction

Simulation-based education is a broad term that encompasses interactions with mannequins and standardized patients, as well as the practice of procedural skills. Simulation is an important facet of undergraduate and graduate medical education and provides an opportunity to practice skills before applying them to patients. The simulation environment represents a perfect opportunity for the deliberate practice of complex skills until mastery is achieved for routine and low-frequency, high-stakes procedures.[1] The process of deliberate practice requires time and motivation, along with goal-oriented feedback at multiple points in time; the process is outcomes-based, not time-based.[2] Mastery learning does not focus on standardizing teaching processes but rather on the learning process. In doing so, variations in learner outcomes are reduced, leading to improved patient safety and cost-effective care, a vital construct amid the ongoing shift in healthcare delivery systems.[3] Simulation-based mastery learning represents an opportunity to address complex drivers identified as areas needing improvement in patient safety: communication, teamwork, procedural competency, and knowledge of high-stakes or rare events.[3]

Curriculum Development

When designing a curriculum that encompasses mastery learning concepts, the Angoff method is widely accepted for identifying when mastery is achieved.[4] Traditional education models use a minimum passing score to move on to the next level; however, the Angoff method does not account for critical versus noncritical procedural skills. Newer methods, such as the Mastery Angoff method and the Patient-Safety approach, have been proposed that raise the bar for what should be considered a minimum level of competency.[5] As with introducing any new scoring method for competency, validity evidence with the measurement tool should be utilized to ensure proper assessment of learners.[6][7]  Lineberry et al. provide guidance for developing and implementing assessment tools. Faculty should determine how to use and interpret assessments, gauge the response to feedback, assess the reliability and structure of the assessment, determine its relationship to other variables, and identify the potential intended and unintended consequences of the assessment.[7]

Complex procedures and high-stakes clinical scenarios can introduce cognitive overload and psychological stress to learners, especially novices. These can be broken down into micro-skills, introducing each procedure component 1 at a time and building on it with the next step until learners reach a level of competency that represents mastery.[1] This process differs from traditional teaching in that no time limit is imposed on learning the technique; a faculty member oversees the process and provides any necessary remediation to achieve mastery.[8] When outlined, a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum focuses on the following: baseline testing; learning objectives that escalate in difficulty; educational initiatives to meet the learning objectives; a competency level to meet or exceed; periodic formative assessment; a feedback loop; and the ability to continually practice until achieving mastery.[9] The feedback loop should be planned in advance based on the type (feedback versus true debriefing), source (self, peer, video, subject-matter expert, simulator data), and timing (in-action, immediate, delayed). Faculty should also set the stage to highlight the selected debriefing process and provide feedback to maintain psychological safety.  Feedback and debriefing can be an uncomfortable process.[10]

Procedural Skills Assessment

Mastery learning has been extensively studied for the acquisition of procedural skills. As learners perform these procedures better, patients experience fewer complications and shorter lengths of stay.[4][11] Cost analysis also demonstrates a return on investment when considering the cost of task trainers and faculty time.[11] Mastery learning theory is supported by the body of literature, which demonstrates that learners perform worse over time when there are intervals of time during which a certain procedure is not performed.[12]

In 1 study, deliberate practice was shown to be an effective method to overcome gender differences in procedural skills. Historically, males have achieved higher scores on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. Ritter et al demonstrated that a curriculum focused on mastery learning supported by deliberate practice can virtually eliminate these disparate results.[13]

Medical Decision Making and Leadership Development

Mastery learning has also been studied for clinical skills. A recent study examined its utility in achieving Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), core skills that are part of competency measures in undergraduate medical education. The EPAs are a set of skills that medical students should acquire before entering residency, and be able to perform without supervision.[14]

Robinson et al studied the effect of an online training program for detecting melanomas. Their analysis revealed that a mastery training program reduced unnecessary referrals to dermatologists for benign skin lesions and increased referrals for melanomas.[15]

Another study examined mastery learning in communication skills, specifically in difficult conversations such as breaking bad news. This is an important method for assessing learners' skills that affect patient-provider relationships.[16]

Clinical Significance

Mastery learning supports competency-based education (CBE). The shift towards CBE derived from the need for supplemental education with the advent of the mandate of reduced working hours in graduate medical education. Residents have subsequently had less exposure to the clinical environment; therefore, a more systematic approach to acquiring skills is necessary.[4] Evidence shows that current caseloads are insufficient for acquiring endoscopic surgical skills during residency programs. Simulation-based mastery learning programs have shown potential for filling this gap and leading to higher passing rates on board certification exams.[17]

Skills retention has been shown to wane over time. Mastery learning has been studied to overcome skill degradation and increase patient safety.[2][18][4][18][4][19] However, skill and knowledge can degrade even after mastery has been achieved, especially for low-frequency events. A multicenter study showed evidence of degradation starting at 2 months. Subsequently, the authors advocate frequent retraining within 6 months of the initial mastery training. However, this was based on a 1-hour training block, and the interval at which retraining should occur may depend on the intensity and length of the original mastery training.[19]

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

The ability for teams to participate in iterative sessions, especially for resuscitation, positively contributes to patient outcomes. Secondly, deliberate practice can also lend itself to improved confidence for those serving as team leaders in code situations.[20]

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Petrosoniak A, Lu M, Gray S, Hicks C, Sherbino J, McGowan M, Monteiro S. Perfecting practice: a protocol for assessing simulation-based mastery learning and deliberate practice versus self-guided practice for bougie-assisted cricothyroidotomy performance. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Apr 05;19(1):100. [PMC free article: PMC6451236] [PubMed: 30953546]

2.

Friederichs H, Marschall B, Weissenstein A. Simulation-based mastery learning in medical students: Skill retention at 1-year follow up. Med Teach. 2019 May;41(5):539-546. [PubMed: 30332904]

3.

Dunn W, Dong Y, Zendejas B, Ruparel R, Farley D. Simulation, Mastery Learning and Healthcare. Am J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;353(2):158-165. [PubMed: 28183417]

4.

Bisgaard CH, Rubak SLM, Rodt SA, Petersen JAK, Musaeus P. The effects of graduate competency-based education and mastery learning on patient care and return on investment: a narrative review of basic anesthetic procedures. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):154. [PMC free article: PMC6025802] [PubMed: 29954376]

5.

Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Wayne DB, McGaghie WC, Yudkowsky R. A Comparison of Approaches for Mastery Learning Standard Setting. Acad Med. 2018 Jul;93(7):1079-1084. [PubMed: 29465449]

6.

Østergaard ML, Nielsen KR, Albrecht-Beste E, Konge L, Nielsen MB. Development of a reliable simulation-based test for diagnostic abdominal ultrasound with a pass/fail standard usable for mastery learning. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):51-57. [PubMed: 28677051]

7.

Lineberry M, Soo Park Y, Cook DA, Yudkowsky R. Making the case for mastery learning assessments: key issues in validation and justification. Acad Med. 2015 Nov;90(11):1445-50. [PubMed: 26287919]

8.

Liepert AE, Velic AJ, Rademacher B, Blumenfeld AA, Bingman E, O'Rourke AP, Sullivan S. Proficiency development for graduating medical students, using skills-level-appropriate mastery learning versus traditional learning for chest tube placement: Assessing anxiety, confidence, and performance. Surgery. 2019 Jun;165(6):1075-1081. [PubMed: 30851948]

9.

Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Wayne DB, Siddall VJ, McGaghie WC. Developing a Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Curriculum: Lessons From 11 Years of Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):52-9. [PubMed: 26536342]

10.

Eppich WJ, Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Siddall VJ, Cheng A. Structuring feedback and debriefing to achieve mastery learning goals. Acad Med. 2015 Nov;90(11):1501-8. [PubMed: 26375272]

11.

Schwab B, Teitelbaum EN, Barsuk JH, Soper NJ, Hungness ES. Single-stage laparoscopic management of choledocholithiasis: An analysis after implementation of a mastery learning resident curriculum. Surgery. 2018 Mar;163(3):503-508. [PubMed: 29191675]

12.

Baumann LM, Barsness KA. The Case for Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Education Courses for Practicing Surgeons. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018 Sep;28(9):1125-1128. [PubMed: 29641367]

13.

Ritter EM, Lineberry M, Hashimoto DA, Gee D, Guzzetta AA, Scott DJ, Gardner AK. Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam. Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec;32(12):5006-5011. [PubMed: 30014324]

14.

Salzman DH, McGaghie WC, Caprio TW, Hufmeyer KK, Issa N, Cohen ER, Wayne DB. A Mastery Learning Capstone Course to Teach and Assess Components of Three Entrustable Professional Activities to Graduating Medical Students. Teach Learn Med. 2019 Apr-May;31(2):186-194. [PubMed: 30596271]

15.

Robinson JK, Jain N, Marghoob AA, McGaghie W, MacLean M, Gerami P, Hultgren B, Turrisi R, Mallett K, Martin GJ. A Randomized Trial on the Efficacy of Mastery Learning for Primary Care Provider Melanoma Opportunistic Screening Skills and Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jun;33(6):855-862. [PMC free article: PMC5975143] [PubMed: 29404948]

16.

Vermylen JH, Wood GJ, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Development of a Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Curriculum for Breaking Bad News. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Mar;57(3):682-687. [PubMed: 30472316]

17.

Ritter EM, Taylor ZA, Wolf KR, Franklin BR, Placek SB, Korndorffer JR, Gardner AK. Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam. Surg Endosc. 2018 Jan;32(1):413-420. [PubMed: 28698900]

18.

Lipsky MS, Cone CJ. A review of mastery learning: The roseman model as an illustrative case. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2018 Jan-Apr;31(1):39-42. [PubMed: 30117471]

19.

Braun L, Sawyer T, Smith K, Hsu A, Behrens M, Chan D, Hutchinson J, Lu D, Singh R, Reyes J, Lopreiato J. Retention of pediatric resuscitation performance after a simulation-based mastery learning session: a multicenter randomized trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):131-8. [PubMed: 25647122]

20.

Rice J, Omron R, Calkins H. Optimizing Mastery Learning Environments: A New Approach to Deliberate Practice for Simulation-based Learning. AEM Educ Train. 2018 Apr;2(2):77-81. [PMC free article: PMC6001729] [PubMed: 30051072]

Disclosure: Heidi Felix declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Kimberly Schertzer declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.