基于模拟的总结性评估在医疗保健:关键原则的实践概述。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI:10.1186/s41077-022-00238-9
Clément Buléon, Laurent Mattatia, Rebecca D Minehart, Jenny W Rudolph, Fernande J Lois, Erwan Guillouet, Anne-Laure Philippon, Olivier Brissaud, Antoine Lefevre-Scelles, Dan Benhamou, François Lecomte, The SoFraSimS Assessment With Simulation Group, Anne Bellot, Isabelle Crublé, Guillaume Philippot, Thierry Vanderlinden, Sébastien Batrancourt, Claire Boithias-Guerot, Jean Bréaud, Philine de Vries, Louis Sibert, Thierry Sécheresse, Virginie Boulant, Louis Delamarre, Laurent Grillet, Marianne Jund, Christophe Mathurin, Jacques Berthod, Blaise Debien, Olivier Gacia, Guillaume Der Sahakian, Sylvain Boet, Denis Oriot, Jean-Michel Chabot
{"title":"基于模拟的总结性评估在医疗保健:关键原则的实践概述。","authors":"Clément Buléon,&nbsp;Laurent Mattatia,&nbsp;Rebecca D Minehart,&nbsp;Jenny W Rudolph,&nbsp;Fernande J Lois,&nbsp;Erwan Guillouet,&nbsp;Anne-Laure Philippon,&nbsp;Olivier Brissaud,&nbsp;Antoine Lefevre-Scelles,&nbsp;Dan Benhamou,&nbsp;François Lecomte,&nbsp;The SoFraSimS Assessment With Simulation Group,&nbsp;Anne Bellot,&nbsp;Isabelle Crublé,&nbsp;Guillaume Philippot,&nbsp;Thierry Vanderlinden,&nbsp;Sébastien Batrancourt,&nbsp;Claire Boithias-Guerot,&nbsp;Jean Bréaud,&nbsp;Philine de Vries,&nbsp;Louis Sibert,&nbsp;Thierry Sécheresse,&nbsp;Virginie Boulant,&nbsp;Louis Delamarre,&nbsp;Laurent Grillet,&nbsp;Marianne Jund,&nbsp;Christophe Mathurin,&nbsp;Jacques Berthod,&nbsp;Blaise Debien,&nbsp;Olivier Gacia,&nbsp;Guillaume Der Sahakian,&nbsp;Sylvain Boet,&nbsp;Denis Oriot,&nbsp;Jean-Michel Chabot","doi":"10.1186/s41077-022-00238-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, \"the use of simulation for summative assessment\" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven topics were selected by the task force: \"What can be assessed in simulation?\", \"Assessment tools for SBSA\", \"Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process\", \"Scenarios for SBSA\", \"Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA\", \"Trainers for SBSA\", and \"Implementation of SBSA in healthcare\". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature (\"What can be assessed in simulation?\"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion (\"Assessment tools for SBSA\", \"Scenarios for SBSA\", \"Implementation of SBSA in healthcare\"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence (\"Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process\", \"Debriefing for SBSA\", \"Trainers for SBSA\"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9795938/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.\",\"authors\":\"Clément Buléon,&nbsp;Laurent Mattatia,&nbsp;Rebecca D Minehart,&nbsp;Jenny W Rudolph,&nbsp;Fernande J Lois,&nbsp;Erwan Guillouet,&nbsp;Anne-Laure Philippon,&nbsp;Olivier Brissaud,&nbsp;Antoine Lefevre-Scelles,&nbsp;Dan Benhamou,&nbsp;François Lecomte,&nbsp;The SoFraSimS Assessment With Simulation Group,&nbsp;Anne Bellot,&nbsp;Isabelle Crublé,&nbsp;Guillaume Philippot,&nbsp;Thierry Vanderlinden,&nbsp;Sébastien Batrancourt,&nbsp;Claire Boithias-Guerot,&nbsp;Jean Bréaud,&nbsp;Philine de Vries,&nbsp;Louis Sibert,&nbsp;Thierry Sécheresse,&nbsp;Virginie Boulant,&nbsp;Louis Delamarre,&nbsp;Laurent Grillet,&nbsp;Marianne Jund,&nbsp;Christophe Mathurin,&nbsp;Jacques Berthod,&nbsp;Blaise Debien,&nbsp;Olivier Gacia,&nbsp;Guillaume Der Sahakian,&nbsp;Sylvain Boet,&nbsp;Denis Oriot,&nbsp;Jean-Michel Chabot\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-022-00238-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, \\\"the use of simulation for summative assessment\\\" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven topics were selected by the task force: \\\"What can be assessed in simulation?\\\", \\\"Assessment tools for SBSA\\\", \\\"Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process\\\", \\\"Scenarios for SBSA\\\", \\\"Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA\\\", \\\"Trainers for SBSA\\\", and \\\"Implementation of SBSA in healthcare\\\". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature (\\\"What can be assessed in simulation?\\\"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion (\\\"Assessment tools for SBSA\\\", \\\"Scenarios for SBSA\\\", \\\"Implementation of SBSA in healthcare\\\"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence (\\\"Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process\\\", \\\"Debriefing for SBSA\\\", \\\"Trainers for SBSA\\\"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9795938/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00238-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00238-9","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: 1

摘要

背景:医疗保健课程需要与临床情况相关并具有代表性的总结性评估,以最佳地选择和培养学习者。模拟提供了多种好处,越来越多的文献基础证明了它在形成环境中的训练效用。推进到下一步,“使用模拟进行总结性评估”需要严格和基于证据的开发,因为任何总结性评估对参与者、培训师和项目都是高风险的。这个过程的第一步是确定我们可以开始的基线。方法:首先,使用改良的名义小组技术,一个由34名小组成员组成的工作组定义了主题,以澄清为什么,如何,什么,何时以及谁使用基于模拟的总结性评估(SBSA)。其次,每个主题都是由一组小组成员根据最先进的文献综述技术,用滚雪球的方法来确定进一步的参考文献。我们的目标是确定当前的知识和对未来方向的潜在建议。结果在小组间交叉核对,并由一个独立的专家委员会进行审查。结果:工作组选择了七个主题:“在模拟中可以评估什么?”、“SBSA的评估工具”、“进行SBSA过程的后果”、“SBSA的情景”、“SBSA的汇报、视频和研究”、“SBSA培训师”和“在医疗保健中实施SBSA”。总之,这七次勘探提供了一个关于已知和可以相对确定地完成的内容,以及未知和可能需要进一步调查的内容的概述。在此基础上,我们强调了不同总结性评估相关结论的可信度,剩余的重要问题和问题,以及它们对参与者和机构如何进行SBSA的影响。结论:我们的结果在七个主题中确定了一个领域具有文献中强有力的证据(“在模拟中可以评估什么?”),三个领域具有需要专家意见指导的证据(“SBSA的评估工具”,“SBSA的情景”,“在医疗保健中实施SBSA”),以及三个证据薄弱或新出现的领域(“经历SBSA过程的后果”,“SBSA的汇报”,“SBSA的培训师”)。随着对该应用程序的需求不断增加,使用SBSA具有很大的前景。由于涉及重大利害关系,必须严格执行和监督。良好做法的指导方针应该正式确定,以帮助进行和实施。我们相信这个基线可以指导未来的研究和指南的制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.

Background: Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.

Methods: First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.

Results: Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.

Conclusion: Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Effectiveness of hybrid simulation training on medical student performance in whole-task consultation of cardiac patients: The ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE randomized waitlist-controlled trial. Using simulation scenarios and a debriefing structure to promote feedback skills among interprofessional team members in clinical practice. Reclaiming identities: exploring the influence of simulation on refugee doctors' workforce integration. TEAMs go VR-validating the TEAM in a virtual reality (VR) medical team training. Theoretical foundations and implications of augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality for immersive learning in health professions education.
×
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