Oscars vs OSCEs
'You're not acting for an Oscar, you're role playing for an OSCE.' This was Phill Doulton's opening line to a room of role players, who were preparing for Psychiatry exams in Sheffield.
You may ask, what makes role playing different to acting? Surely it's just a fancy word for the same thing? Wrong. Here are three reasons why.
1 Unscripted
First and foremost, role players/simulated patients do not work from scripts. Each scenario has an element of reality injected into it. The simulated patient's reaction is a consequence of the medic that sits in front of them and this will change from person-to-person. A role player must act on their feet (pardon the pun) and deal with the situation that is presented in front of them in a real way.
2 Standardisation
In strict clinical assessments, testing has to be accurate and quantified. Actors are trained to be different and unique in their performances; simulated patients are not. In assessment settings, simulated patients group together to portray the same patient; agreeing on emotional level, body language, delivery and opening statements. Examiners are then able to make direct comparisons between the candidates, which in turn validates the examination setting.
3 Feedback
Role players are specifically trained to give feedback both in and out of character. In role, simulated patients express their feelings about the consultation as the patient. Again, this requires improvisation to reinforce the real-life setting. Out of role, simulated patients are asked to recall how they felt the consultation went. They focus on observed behaviours, verbal communications and emotional consequences. Giving constructive feedback is a significant part to role playing. An actor does not give feedback, they receive it with applause.
Although we won't be rolling out the red carpet at the next OSCE, we must all continue to remember the importance of these exams and the role players who are part of them.
Click here to join our role play team