(1088) Comparing Three Methods to Assess Learning Outcomes for a Suicide Prevention Training Program for Pharmacy Staff

Objectives: Little research has examined methods for assessing learning outcomes for online suicide prevention training programs for pharmacy staff. Benefits of live simulated patient (SP) cases are that they can provide trainees with a realistic and interactive environment in which to practice communication skills. However, live simulated patients can be costly and resource-intensive, which makes it important to assess whether other assessment methods, particularly written cases and non-live video simulated patients, are viable methods for assessing trainee outcomes. Research to date has not directly compared written patient cases with video-recorded and live SPs.
We aim to address this research gap by comparing three methods (written, live SPs, video SPs) to assess learning outcomes for a pharmacy-focused suicide prevention training program (Pharm-SAVES).

Methods: All participants (n=12) were recruited after completing a 30-minute online suicide prevention training (Pharm-SAVES). Pharm-SAVES was developed specifically for pharmacy staff and teaches them to identify suicide warning signs, ask about suicide, and make referrals. After completing the training, participants were asked to respond to three hypothetical patient cases with an individual who exhibits suicide warning signs. One case was in written format and completed as part of an online survey; whereas the video-recorded interaction and live SPt encounter were enacted and recorded via Zoom. We descriptively explored whether how often trainees directly asked about suicide and referred the patient to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) differed across the three assessment methods. Using a 3-point scale, (0: skill not demonstrated, 1: skill needs development; 2: skill demonstrated with competence) we also explored whether verbal and non-verbal communication skills differed between the video-recorded and live SPs.

Results: Nine pharmacists and 3 pharmacy technicians completed all three assessments. Trainees directly asked about suicide in 8 (66.7%) written patient cases, 9 (75%) recorded patient cases, and 8 (66.7%) live patient cases. Pharmacy respondents did not differ in referrals to the NSPL, with 8 (66.7%) referrals in the written case, 5 (41.7%) in the recorded patient case, and 10 (83.3%) in the live patient case. Trainees’ mean scores to confidently speak about suicide, use of clear enunciation, and use of confident posture did not differ between the live simulated and video-recorded patient encounters. Participants appeared to maintain a natural tone more frequently in the live simulated patient encounter.

Conclusions: This study is the first to compare written patient scenarios directly with live and video-recorded SP encounters in the implementation of suicide prevention training for pharmacy staff. This study suggests that written patient cases and video patient cases may have similar utility to live SPs in evaluating the impact of suicide prevention training on communication outcomes. Written cases or video-recorded patient cases could be considered by programs that do not have enough resources to hire and train live SPs for evaluation of suicide prevention training.