模拟工作中的多样性和包容性:解决与模拟参与者一起工作时的伦理和心理安全问题。

IF 1.1 Q2 Social Sciences BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning Pub Date : 2021-05-06 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853
Leanne Picketts, Marika Dawn Warren, Carrie Bohnert
{"title":"模拟工作中的多样性和包容性:解决与模拟参与者一起工作时的伦理和心理安全问题。","authors":"Leanne Picketts, Marika Dawn Warren, Carrie Bohnert","doi":"10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare learners can gain necessary experience working with diverse and priority communities through human simulation. In this context, simulated participants (SPs) may be recruited for specific roles because of their appearance, lived experience or identity. Although one of the benefits of simulation is providing learners with practice where the risk of causing harm to patients in the clinical setting is reduced, simulation shifts the potential harm from real patients to SPs. Negative effects of tokenism, misrepresentation, stereotyping or microaggressions may be amplified when SPs are recruited for personal characteristics or lived experience. Educators have an ethical obligation to promote diversity and inclusion; however, we are also obliged to mitigate harm to SPs. The goals of simulation (fulfilling learning objectives safely, authentically and effectively) and curricular obligations to address diverse and priority communities can be in tension with one another; valuing educational benefits might cause educators to deprioritise safety concerns. We explore this tension using a framework of diversity practices, ethics and values and simulation standards of best practice. Through the lens of healthcare ethics, we draw on the ways clinical research can provide a model for how ethical concerns can be approached in simulation, and suggest strategies to uphold authenticity and safety while representing diverse and priority communities. Our objective is not to provide a conclusive statement about how values should be weighed relative to each other, but to offer a framework to guide the complex process of weighing potential risks and benefits when working with diverse and priority communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":44757,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936749/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diversity and inclusion in simulation: addressing ethical and psychological safety concerns when working with simulated participants.\",\"authors\":\"Leanne Picketts, Marika Dawn Warren, Carrie Bohnert\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Healthcare learners can gain necessary experience working with diverse and priority communities through human simulation. In this context, simulated participants (SPs) may be recruited for specific roles because of their appearance, lived experience or identity. Although one of the benefits of simulation is providing learners with practice where the risk of causing harm to patients in the clinical setting is reduced, simulation shifts the potential harm from real patients to SPs. Negative effects of tokenism, misrepresentation, stereotyping or microaggressions may be amplified when SPs are recruited for personal characteristics or lived experience. Educators have an ethical obligation to promote diversity and inclusion; however, we are also obliged to mitigate harm to SPs. The goals of simulation (fulfilling learning objectives safely, authentically and effectively) and curricular obligations to address diverse and priority communities can be in tension with one another; valuing educational benefits might cause educators to deprioritise safety concerns. We explore this tension using a framework of diversity practices, ethics and values and simulation standards of best practice. Through the lens of healthcare ethics, we draw on the ways clinical research can provide a model for how ethical concerns can be approached in simulation, and suggest strategies to uphold authenticity and safety while representing diverse and priority communities. Our objective is not to provide a conclusive statement about how values should be weighed relative to each other, but to offer a framework to guide the complex process of weighing potential risks and benefits when working with diverse and priority communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936749/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健学习者可以通过人体模拟获得与不同群体和优先群体打交道的必要经验。在这种情况下,模拟参与者(SPs)可能因其外貌、生活经历或身份而被招募担任特定角色。虽然模拟的好处之一是为学习者提供实践机会,降低在临床环境中对患者造成伤害的风险,但模拟将潜在的伤害从真实患者转移到了模拟参与者身上。如果因个人特征或生活经历而招募 SPs,则可能会扩大象征性、歪曲性、刻板印象或微观诽谤的负面影响。教育者有道德义务促进多样性和包容性;但是,我们也有义务减轻对特殊学生的伤害。模拟教学的目标(安全、真实、有效地实现学习目标)与解决多样化和优先群体问题的课程义务可能会相互矛盾;重视教育效益可能会导致教育者将安全问题置于次要地位。我们利用多样性实践、伦理和价值观以及最佳实践模拟标准的框架来探讨这种矛盾。通过医疗保健伦理的视角,我们借鉴了临床研究的方法,为如何在模拟教学中处理伦理问题提供了范例,并提出了在代表多样化和优先群体的同时维护真实性和安全性的策略。我们的目标不是就如何权衡彼此的价值提供结论性的声明,而是提供一个框架,以指导在与不同群体和优先群体合作时权衡潜在风险和利益的复杂过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Diversity and inclusion in simulation: addressing ethical and psychological safety concerns when working with simulated participants.

Healthcare learners can gain necessary experience working with diverse and priority communities through human simulation. In this context, simulated participants (SPs) may be recruited for specific roles because of their appearance, lived experience or identity. Although one of the benefits of simulation is providing learners with practice where the risk of causing harm to patients in the clinical setting is reduced, simulation shifts the potential harm from real patients to SPs. Negative effects of tokenism, misrepresentation, stereotyping or microaggressions may be amplified when SPs are recruited for personal characteristics or lived experience. Educators have an ethical obligation to promote diversity and inclusion; however, we are also obliged to mitigate harm to SPs. The goals of simulation (fulfilling learning objectives safely, authentically and effectively) and curricular obligations to address diverse and priority communities can be in tension with one another; valuing educational benefits might cause educators to deprioritise safety concerns. We explore this tension using a framework of diversity practices, ethics and values and simulation standards of best practice. Through the lens of healthcare ethics, we draw on the ways clinical research can provide a model for how ethical concerns can be approached in simulation, and suggest strategies to uphold authenticity and safety while representing diverse and priority communities. Our objective is not to provide a conclusive statement about how values should be weighed relative to each other, but to offer a framework to guide the complex process of weighing potential risks and benefits when working with diverse and priority communities.

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
BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning
BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Simulation-based Training on Reflective Practice. Virtual tabletop simulations for primary care pandemic preparedness and response. Developing a simulation programme to train airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary-level hospital. Interprofessional teamwork for managing medical deterioration in pregnancy: what contributes to good clinical performance in simulated practice? Age suit simulation replicates in healthy young adults the functional challenges to balance experienced by older adults: an observational study
×
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