Trial reportBMJ open2015
Clarifying the learning experiences of healthcare professionals with in situ and off-site simulation-based medical education: a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Authentic roles matter: how in situ simulation influences fidelity, psychological safety, and learning transfer.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Review
- Interprofessional In Situ Simulation's Impact on Healthcare Personnel's Competence and Reported Need for Training in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation-A Pilot Study in Norway.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Association between cardiopulmonary resuscitation audit results with in-situ simulation and in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes and key performance indicators.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Identification of Clinician Training Techniques as an Implementation Strategy to Improve Maternal Health: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Off-site simulation-based training on management of postpartum hemorrhage amongst final-year medical students.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Article
- Article
- From ideal to real: a qualitative study of the implementation of in situ interprofessional simulation-based education.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Obstetric neonatal emergency simulation workshops in remote and regional South India: a qualitative evaluation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the feasibility and impacts of in situ simulation in emergency medicine-a mixed-method study protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Obstetric emergency simulation training course: experience of a private-public partnership in Brazil.Reproductive health · 2019Article
- Article
- Off-ward paediatric in situ simulation: are we ready?BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2018Article
- Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation.BMC medical education · 2017Article
- Variation and adaptation: learning from success in patient safety-oriented simulation training.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2017Article
- Team talk and team activity in simulated medical emergencies: a discourse analytical approach.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Simulation reframed.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2016Article
- An Exploration of Student Perception Toward Interprofessional High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine how the setting in in situ simulation (ISS) and off-site simulation (OSS) in simulation-based medical education affects the perceptions and learning experience of healthcare professionals.
designQualitative study using focus groups and content analysis.
participantsTwenty-five healthcare professionals (obstetricians, midwives, auxiliary nurses, anaesthesiologists, a nurse anaesthetist and operating theatre nurse) participated in four focus groups and were recruited due to their exposure to either ISS or OSS in multidisciplinary obstetric emergencies in a randomised trial.
settingDepartments of obstetrics and anaesthesia, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
resultsInitially participants preferred ISS, but this changed after the training when the simulation site became of less importance. There was a strong preference for simulation in authentic roles. These perceptions were independent of the ISS or OSS setting. Several positive and negative factors in simulation were identified, but these had no relation to the simulation setting. Participants from ISS and OSS generated a better understanding of and collaboration with the various health professionals. They also provided individual and team reflections on learning. ISS participants described more experiences that would involve organisational changes than the OSS participants did.
conclusionsMany psychological and sociological aspects related to the authenticity of the learning experience are important in simulation, but the physical setting of the simulation as an ISS and OSS is the least important. Based on these focus groups OSS can be used provided that all other authenticity elements are taken into consideration and respected. The only difference was that ISS had an organisational impact and ISS participants talked more about issues that would involve practical organisational changes. ISS and OSS participants did, however, go through similar individual and team learning experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.