Advances in simulation (London, England)最新文献

The Implicit Theory of Mindset proposes two different mindsets that sit at opposite ends of a spectrum: a fixed mindset versus a growth mindset. With a fixed mindset, an individual believes they are born with a certain amount of an attribute, and so their potential is both pre-determined and static. With a growth mindset, an individual believes their attributes are malleable and can strengthen over time with repeated effort, adaptable learning strategies, and challenge seeking. Adoption of a growth mindset is associated with improved academic success, more effective learning strategies, increased resilience in the face of adversity, and better mental wellbeing.The theoretical underpinning of psychological safety resonates with the Implicit Theory of Mindset as it infers that a significant number of simulation participants have a fixed mindset and are therefore more likely to be fearful of making an error. The simulation community agree that participants need to feel comfortable making errors for simulation to be successful. The key word here is comfortable. Participants feeling comfortable to make errors just scratches the surface of adopting a growth mindset. With a growth mindset, participants see errors as a positive in the simulation experience, an inevitability of the learning process, evidence that they are adequately challenging themselves to improve.Encouraging adoption of a growth mindset in participants is a powerful addition to the establishment of psychological safety because a growth mindset will re-frame participants' experiences of social comparison from negative to positive and optimize information processing. We propose a novel idea: simulation educators should be explicit in the pre-brief about what a growth mindset is and its associated benefits to encourage its adoption during the simulation activity-a simulation growth mindset intervention. If this is not possible due to time constraints, an online module or article about growth mindset would be appropriate as pre-reading to encourage adoption of a growth mindset in participants. The message is not that a simulation growth mindset intervention should replace the focus on psychological safety but rather that it should be used synergistically to provide the highest quality simulation experience.

Background: Translational simulation is focused directly on healthcare quality, safety, and systems. Effective translational simulation design and delivery may require knowledge and skills in areas like quality improvement and safety science. How translational simulation programs support their faculty to learn these skills is unknown. We aimed to explore current faculty development practices within translational simulation programs, and the rationale for the approaches taken.

Methods: We used a qualitative approach to explore faculty development in translational simulation programs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives who have leadership and/or faculty development responsibilities in these programs and performed a thematic analysis of the data.

Results: Sixteen interviews were conducted with translational simulation program leaders from nine countries. We identified three themes in our exploration of translational simulation faculty development practices: (1) diverse content, (2) 'home-grown', informal processes, and (3) the influence of organisational context. Collaboration beyond the historical boundaries of the healthcare simulation community was an enabler across themes.

Conclusion: Leaders in translational simulation programs suggest a diverse array of knowledge and skills are important for translational simulation faculty and report a range of informal and formal approaches to the development of these skills. Many programs are early in the development of their approach to faculty development, and all are powerfully influenced by their context; the program aims, structure, and strategy.

Introduction: Medical errors still plague healthcare. Operating Room Black Box (ORBB) and ORBB-simulation (ORBBSIM) are innovative emerging technologies which continuously capture as well as categorize intraoperative data, team information, and audio-visual files, in effort to improve objective quality measures. ORBB and ORBBSIM have an opportunity to improve patient safety, yet a paucity of implementation literature exists. Overcoming implementation barriers is critical. This study sought to obtain rich insights while identifying facilitators and barriers to adoption of ORBB and ORBBSIM in alignment with Donabedian's model of health services and healthcare quality. Enrichment themes included translational performance improvement and real-world examples to develop sessions.

Methods: Interprofessional OR staff were invited to complete two surveys assessing staff's perceptions using TeamSTEPPS's validated Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative variables, and inductive phenomenological content analysis was used for qualitative.

Results: Survey 1 captured 71 responses from 334 invited (RR 21%) while survey 2 captured 47 responses from 157 (RR 29.9%). The T-TPQ score was 65.2, with Communication (70.4) the highest construct and Leadership (58.0) the lowest. Quality Improvement (QI), Patient Safety, and Objective Case Review were the most common perceived ORBB benefits. Trends suggested a reciprocal benefit of dual ORBB and ORBBSIM adoption. Trends also suggested that dual implementation can promote Psychological Safety, culture, trust, and technology comfort. The need for an implementation plan built on change management principles and a constructive culture were key findings.

Conclusions: Findings supported ORBB implementation themes from previous literature and deepened our understanding through the exploration of team culture. This blueprint provides a model to help organizations adopt ORBB and ORBBSIM. Outcomes can establish an empirical paradigm for future studies.

Aspirations to achieve quality and safety goals in health services through simulation have led to significant investments in simulation equipment, space and faculty. However, the optimal governance and operational models through which these resources are expertly applied in health services are not known. There is growing evidence supporting 'service' models for simulation. In these models, simulation activities are co-designed and delivered by a team of simulation experts in partnership with health service units, specifically targeting quality and safety goals. Embedded simulation specialist teams working within these programs offer benefits not fully captured by traditional models of health education or by traditional systems for quality and safety.In this article, we explore broad and specific recommendations for establishing a simulation consultancy service within an Australian metropolitan health service. We base these recommendations on a review of current Australian practice and healthcare simulation literature, and on a specific example within a large outer metropolitan health service. The broad domains discussed include (1) governance and leadership; (2) human resources; (3) principles and planning; (4) operationalise and evaluate and (5) look to the future.The recommendations recognise that healthcare simulation is moving beyond solely addressing individual learning outcomes. The value of simulation addressing organisation and system objectives through various simulation modalities is increasingly being explored and demonstrating value. There is a growing demand for translational simulation in these contexts, and a consequent requirement for organisations to consider how simulation services can be successfully operationalised. Recommendations included in this paper are discussed and described with the intent of facilitating a deeper appreciation of the complexities associated with, and opportunities afforded by, a well-integrated simulation service.

Background: While acknowledgement of emotions' importance in simulation-based education is emerging, there are concerns regarding how education researchers understand the concept of emotions for them to deliberately incorporate emotionally charged scenarios into simulation-based education. This concern is highlighted especially in the context of medical education often lacking strong theoretical integration. To map out how current simulation-based education literature conceptualises emotion, we conducted a scoping review on how emotions and closely related constructs (e.g. stress, and emotional intelligence) are conceptualised in simulation-based education articles that feature medical students, residents, and fellows.

Methods: The scoping review was based on articles published in the last decade identified through database searches (EMBASE and Medline) and hand-searched articles. Data extraction included the constructs featured in the articles, their definitions, instruments used, and the types of emotions captured. Only empirical articles were included (e.g. no review or opinion articles). Data were charted via descriptive analyses.

Results: A total of 141 articles were reviewed. Stress was featured in 88 of the articles, while emotions and emotional intelligence were highlighted in 45 and 34 articles respectively. Conceptualisations of emotions lacked integration of theory. Measurements of emotions mostly relied on self-reports while stress was often measured via physiological and self-report measurements. Negative emotions such as anxiety were sometimes seen as interchangeable with the term stress. No inferences were made about specific emotions of participants from their emotional intelligence.

Conclusions: Our scoping review illustrates that learners in simulation-based education are most often anxious and fearful. However, this is partially due to medical education prioritising measuring negative emotions. Further theoretical integration when examining emotions and stress may help broaden the scope towards other kinds of emotions and better conceptualisations of their impact. We call for simulation education researchers to reflect on how they understand emotions, and whether their understanding may neglect any specific aspect of affective experiences their simulation participants may have.

Background: Opportunities to practice procedural skills in the clinical learning environment are decreasing, and faculty time to coach skills is limited, even in simulation-based training. Self-directed learning with hands-on practice early in a procedural skill course might help maximize the benefit of later faculty coaching and clinical experience. However, it may also lead to well-learned errors if learners lack critical guidance. The present study sought to investigate the effects of a hands-on, self-directed "study hall" for central line insertion among first-year residents.

Methods: Learner cohorts before vs. after introduction of the study hall (n = 49) were compared on their pre- and post-test performance of key procedural behaviors that were comparable across cohorts, with all learners receiving traditional instructor-led training between tests.

Results: Study hall participants spent a median of 116 min in hands-on practice (range 57-175). They scored higher at pre-test (44% vs. 27%, p = .00; Cohen's d = 0.95) and at post-test (80% vs. 72%, p = .02; Cohen's d = 0.69). A dose-response relationship was found, such that 2 h of study hall were roughly equivalent to the performance improvement seen with four clinical observations or supervised insertions of central lines.

Conclusions: Self-directed, hands-on "study hall" supported improved procedural skill learning in the context of limited faculty availability. Potential additional benefits make the approach worth further experimentation and evaluation.

Background: Applying simulation-based education (SBE) into surgical curricula is challenging and exacerbated by the absence of guidance on implementation processes. Empirical studies evaluating implementation of SBE interventions focus primarily on outcomes. However, understanding the processes involved in organising, planning, and delivering SBE adds knowledge on how best to develop, implement, and sustain surgical SBE. This study used a reform of early years surgical training to explore the implementation of a new SBE programme in Scotland. It aimed to understand the processes that are involved in the relative success (or failure) when implementing surgical SBE interventions.

Methods: This qualitative case study, underpinned by social constructionism, used publicly available documents and the relevant surgical SBE literature to inform the research focus and contextualise data obtained from semi-structured interviews with core surgical trainees (n = 46), consultant surgeons (n = 25), and key leaders with roles in surgical training governance in Scotland (n = 7). Initial data coding and analysis were inductive. Secondary data analysis was then undertaken using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). NPTs' four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) provided an explanatory framework for scrutinising how interventions are implemented, embedded, and integrated into practice, i.e. the "normalisation" process.

Results: Distributed leadership (individual SBE initiatives assigned to faculty but overall programme overseen by a single leader) and the quality improvement practise of iterative refinement were identified as key novel processes promoting successful normalisation of the new SBE programme. Other processes widely described in the literature were also identified: stakeholder collaboration, personal contacts/relational processes, effective communication, faculty development, effective leadership, and tight programme management. The study also identified that learners valued SBE activities in group- or team-based social environments over isolated deliberate practice.

Conclusions: SBE is most effective when designed as a comprehensive programme aligned to the curriculum. Programmes incorporating both group-based and isolated SBE activities promote deliberate practice. Distributed leadership amongst faculty attracts wide engagement integral to SBE programme implementation, while iterative programme refinement through regular evaluation and action on feedback encourages integration into practice. The knowledge contributed by critically analysing SBE programme implementation processes can support development of much needed guidance in this area.

Background: Colonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.

Methods: The validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.

Results: Twenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.

Conclusion: We established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.

Background: Operating rooms have become more technically complex due to new advanced procedures, which has increased demands on teamwork in the operating room. In response, team training has been proposed to improve team performance, workplace culture, and patient safety. We developed and delivered a simulation-based team training course for entire professional surgical teams. This type of intervention has been proposed by researchers but has not been widely published. The aims of this intervention study were to examine participants' reactions to the course in terms of their motivation for the training and their self-efficacy in relation to their performance, as well as their views on transferring the lessons learned in the course to their workplace.

Methods: In a prospective mixed-methods intervention study, operating room professionals participated in a full-day simulation-based teamwork training course. Learning objectives were nontechnical skills, specifically communication and collaboration across the team. Seventy-one staff members representing 5 operating room professions were included, and the average work experience of participants was 6 years. Quantitative data on self-efficacy and situational motivation were collected by questionnaires before and after training. Qualitative data were collected through 5 focus group interviews that took place in direct relation to the courses and included a total of 31 participants. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: All occupations showed a similar pattern in terms of increases in self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation after the training. Analysis of the qualitative data showed that training in one's profession and in authentic multiprofessional teams was important factors for motivation. Participating staff described an awareness of undesirable communication barriers in surgical teams that can lead to risks for patients. Systematic training was definitely perceived as a means to reduce barriers and improve communication and collaboration.

Conclusion: Simulation-based training was equally well received by all professional groups. Our results confirm the feasibility of this type of training for professional teams and promising opportunities for improving teamwork skills. The qualitative data reveal both opportunities and limitations for transferring the learning experiences to the workplace.

Background: Within healthcare, the barriers and enablers that influence clinicians' ability to speak up are well researched. However, despite the receiver of the message being identified as a key barrier to a speaker voicing a concern, there have been very few receiver-focused studies. As a result, little is known about the barriers and enablers that influence message reception. Understanding these can help inform speaking up training and ultimately enhance patient safety through more effective clinical communication.

Objectives: To identify enabling or inhibiting factors that influence the receiver's reception and response to a speaking up message, and if the identified barriers and enablers are related to speaker or receiver characteristics.

Design and methods: Twenty-two interdisciplinary simulations were video recorded and transcribed. Simulation participants formed the patient discharge team and were receivers of a speaking up message, delivered by a nurse at the patient's bedside. How the message was delivered (verbose or abrupt wording), was manipulated and counterbalanced across the simulations. Within the post simulation debriefs, barriers and enablers of being a receiver of a message were explored using content analysis.

Setting/participants: This study took place in a large Australian tertiary healthcare setting. Participants were qualified clinicians of varying disciplines and specialties.

Results: A total of 261 barriers and 285 enablers were coded. Results showed that how the message was delivered (differing tone, phases, and manner) influenced what receivers identified as barriers and enablers. Additionally, the receiver's own cognitive processes, such as making positive attributions of the speaker and attempting to build rapport and collegiality, better enabled message reception and response. Receiver behaviour was negatively impacted by listening to fix, rather than understand, and not knowing in the moment how to manage their own reactions and appropriately frame a response.

Conclusion: The debriefings identified key barriers and enablers to receiving a speaking up message that differ from those previously identified for senders of the speaking up message. Current speaking up programs are predominately speaker centric. This study identified that both speaker and receiver behaviour influenced message reception. Therefore, training must place equal attention on both the speaker and receiver and be inclusive of experiential conversational rehearsal of both positive and challenging encounters.