Artikel
“In situ” versus “off site” simulation: Healthcare professionals’ experience of simulation-based learning; a qualitative study
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
Veröffentlicht: | 12. März 2015 |
---|
Gliederung
Text
Introduction: Recently many have argued for simulation-based medical education (SBME) to be conducted as 'in situ simulations' (ISS) instead of 'off site simulations' (OSS). ISS means SBME in the patient care unit, and OSS means away from the patient unit. ISS is believed to increase fidelity and hypothesised to be more effective [1]. We wanted to explore the effect of simulation setting. Our research question was: How does the setting of simulation-based training (OSS or ISS) affect the learning experiences of health professionals?
Methods:
Design: Qualitative study using focus groups. Data-analysis was done by conventional content analysis. Participants: Four focus groups with 25 multi-professional participants recruited among 97 in a randomized trial investigating the effects of ISS versus OSS [2].
Setting: Obstetric and anaesthesia high-risk departments, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.
Results: Around six themes were identified. Initially the participants had a preference for participating in ISS. However, this changed after the training, and the importance of simulation site appeared to be of less importance. We identified a strong preference for simulation in authentic roles in own institution. Several positive and negative factors in simulation were identified and these had no correlation with the setting of simulation. Both ISS and OSS generated better understanding and collaboration between the health professionals and provided individual and team reflections on learning. ISS encouraged more organisational practical learning than OSS.
Discussion: The preference for participating in ISS changed after training. Simulation in authentic team, own role and organisation seemed to be more important, than whether the setting was ISS or OSS. This perception contrasts with recommendations in the literature about cross training, i.e. training in other role [3]. We concluded that the setting of simulation to be of less importance for individual and team learning, and this conclusion is in alignment with recent discussions on fidelity and learning [4], [5].
References
- 1.
- Rosen MA, Hunt EA, Pronovost PJ, Federowicz MA, Weaver SJ. In situ simulation in continuing education for the health care professions: a systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012;32(4):243-254. DOI: 10.1002/chp.21152
- 2.
- Sørensen JL, Van der Vleuten C, Lindschou J, Gluud C, Østergaard D, LeBlanc V, Johansen M, Ekelund K, Albrechtsen CK, Pedersen BW, Kjærgaard H, Weikop W, Ottesen B. "In situ simulation" versus "off site simulation" in obstetric emergencies and their effect on knowledge, safety-attitudes, team performance, stress, and motivation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:220. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-220
- 3.
- Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Blickensderfer E. The Impact of Cross-Training and Workload on Team Functioning: A Replication and Extension of Initial Findings. J Human Fact Ergo Soc. 1998;40:92.
- 4.
- Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):636–647. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04243.x
- 5.
- Griersen L. Information processing, specificity of practice, and the transfer of learning: considerations for reconsidering fidelity. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19(2):281-289. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-014-9504-x