Readiness planning: how to go beyond "buy-in" to achieve curricular success and front-line performance.

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1186/s41077-024-00317-z
Christopher J Roussin, Grace Ng, Mary K Fey, James A Lipshaw, Henrique P Arantes, Jenny W Rudolph
{"title":"Readiness planning: how to go beyond \"buy-in\" to achieve curricular success and front-line performance.","authors":"Christopher J Roussin, Grace Ng, Mary K Fey, James A Lipshaw, Henrique P Arantes, Jenny W Rudolph","doi":"10.1186/s41077-024-00317-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Simulation program staff and leadership often struggle to partner with front-line healthcare workers, their managers, and health system leaders. Simulation-based learning programs are too often seen as burdensome add-ons rather than essential mechanisms supporting clinical workforce readiness. Healthcare system leaders grappling with declining morale, economic pressure, and too few qualified staff often don't see how simulation can help them, and we simulation program leaders can't seem to bridge this gap. Without clear guidance from front-line clinicians and leaders, the challenge of building and maintaining sustainably relevant simulation offerings can seem overwhelming. We argue that three blind spots have limited our ability to see the path to collaborations that support front-line workforce readiness: We wrongly assume that our rigor in designing and delivering programs will lead to front-line participant engagement and positive impact, we overestimate the existence of shared priorities, mindsets, and expertise with our would-be partners, and we contribute to building a façade of superficial education compliance that distracts from vital skill development. How do we design simulation-based training programs that are valued, supported, and sustained by key partners over time? (1) By seeing ourselves as partners first and designers second; (2) by using a boundary spanning design process that shifts the primary psychological ownership of training outcomes to our partners; and (3) by focusing this shared design process on workforce readiness for the situations that our healthcare partners care about most. Drawing on lessons from more than 800 readiness plans developed by participants in our courses and the authors' successes and mistakes in partnering with healthcare teams for front-line readiness, we introduce the concepts, commitments, and practices of \"readiness planning\" along with three detailed examples of readiness planning in action.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"9 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11667836/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-024-00317-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Simulation program staff and leadership often struggle to partner with front-line healthcare workers, their managers, and health system leaders. Simulation-based learning programs are too often seen as burdensome add-ons rather than essential mechanisms supporting clinical workforce readiness. Healthcare system leaders grappling with declining morale, economic pressure, and too few qualified staff often don't see how simulation can help them, and we simulation program leaders can't seem to bridge this gap. Without clear guidance from front-line clinicians and leaders, the challenge of building and maintaining sustainably relevant simulation offerings can seem overwhelming. We argue that three blind spots have limited our ability to see the path to collaborations that support front-line workforce readiness: We wrongly assume that our rigor in designing and delivering programs will lead to front-line participant engagement and positive impact, we overestimate the existence of shared priorities, mindsets, and expertise with our would-be partners, and we contribute to building a façade of superficial education compliance that distracts from vital skill development. How do we design simulation-based training programs that are valued, supported, and sustained by key partners over time? (1) By seeing ourselves as partners first and designers second; (2) by using a boundary spanning design process that shifts the primary psychological ownership of training outcomes to our partners; and (3) by focusing this shared design process on workforce readiness for the situations that our healthcare partners care about most. Drawing on lessons from more than 800 readiness plans developed by participants in our courses and the authors' successes and mistakes in partnering with healthcare teams for front-line readiness, we introduce the concepts, commitments, and practices of "readiness planning" along with three detailed examples of readiness planning in action.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
准备计划:如何超越“买入”,以实现课程成功和一线表现。
模拟项目的工作人员和领导往往难以与一线医护人员、他们的管理者和卫生系统领导合作。基于模拟的学习项目常常被视为累赘的附加项目,而不是支持临床劳动力准备的基本机制。医疗保健系统的领导者正在努力应对士气低落、经济压力和合格员工太少的问题,他们往往看不到模拟能如何帮助他们,而我们的模拟项目领导者似乎无法弥合这一差距。如果没有来自一线临床医生和领导者的明确指导,建立和维护可持续相关模拟产品的挑战似乎是压倒性的。我们认为,三个盲点限制了我们看到支持一线劳动力准备的合作之路的能力:我们错误地认为,我们在设计和交付项目时的严格性将导致一线参与者的参与和积极影响;我们高估了与潜在合作伙伴共享优先事项、心态和专业知识的存在;我们促成了一种肤浅的教育合规的假象,这种假象分散了重要技能发展的注意力。我们如何设计基于模拟的培训项目,并得到关键合作伙伴的重视、支持和长期支持?(1)以合作伙伴为先,以设计师为辅;(2)采用跨界设计流程,将培训结果的主要心理所有权转移给我们的合作伙伴;(3)通过将这个共享设计流程的重点放在我们的医疗保健合作伙伴最关心的情况下的劳动力准备情况上。根据课程参与者制定的800多个准备计划的经验教训,以及作者在与医疗保健团队合作进行一线准备方面的成功和错误,我们介绍了“准备计划”的概念、承诺和实践,以及准备计划在行动中的三个详细示例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
What can simulation educators learn from the reluctant participant? An exploration of the factors influencing engagement amongst adult learners participating in paediatric simulation training. Combining forces to improve simulation-based practices for Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Responses. When is synthetic sufficient? Ethical considerations and alternatives in simulation-based ultrasound education. To intubate or to resuscitate: the effect of simulation-based training on advanced airway management during simulated paediatric resuscitations. Facilitators' experiences with virtual simulation and their impact on learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1