Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study demonstrates simulation exposes the knowing–doing gap in medical students managing arrhythmias, indicating the importance of practice under time pressure.
Background Outcomes-based curricula increasingly emphasize participatory clerkships promoting learning through preparation, practice, feedback, and reflection. Acute arrhythmia care is thought to exemplify the ‘knowing–doing gap', requiring conversion of exam-oriented knowledge into time-critical, integrated performance. Objective We evaluate learners' awareness of a knowing–doing gap through a clerkship-embedded, multicomponent arrhythmia simulation package. Methods We retrospectively analyzed routinely collected program-evaluation data from fifth-year medical students. The simulation package included pre-session self-study. Each student then managed one of five standardized 15-min scenarios as a treating physician using a high-fidelity simulator with a confederate nurse and simulated patient. The scenario was conducted under structured peer observation and was followed by multi-source feedback and physician-facilitated debriefing. Post-session free-text questionnaires were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Of 190 eligible students, 170 (89.5%) completed the package and 164 (96.5%) returned questionnaires. Knowing–doing gap awareness was identified in 83 learners (50.6%). The most common aspect was difficulty in translating knowledge into action under time pressure. Learners also recognized the need for generative decision-making and competencies beyond factual knowledge, including patient explanation, team communication, and situational awareness. Acceptability of the simulation was high, , 25.6% somewhat satisfied, and 93.9% of correspondents supported similar training in other departments. Conclusion A standardized, clerkship-embedded arrhythmia simulation package helped to make the knowing–doing gap visible from multiple perspectives within a safe-to-fail environment supported by structured feedback and debriefing. The package was acceptable to learners and feasible to deliver within a routine cardiology clerkship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanimoto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: