Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28109296›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2017

Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation.

Jette Led Sørensen, Doris Østergaard, Vicki LeBlanc, Bent Ottesen, Lars Konge, Peter Dieckmann, Cees Van der Vleuten

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03499002 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Teaching Medical Students How to Suture: Standard Simulation vs in Situ

TypeinterventionalSponsorMemorial University of NewfoundlandRan2018 to 2018Enrolled0ConditionsSutured Laceration, LacerationArmsSimulated Learning Environment
NCT06001879 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Protocol Title : Development, Validation, and Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Simulation in Basic Life Support Training (SBLST) on Newly Employed Nurses in Governmental Jordanian Hospitals.

TypeinterventionalSponsoryousef Shukry Mohammad Abu-WardehRan2022 to 2024Enrolled102ConditionsHealthy Nurses, Educational ActivitiesArmsSimulation in basic life support training (SBLST), standard treatment by using an AHA-BLS 2020 brochure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 258 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. In situ simulation and its effects on patient outcomes: a systematic review.BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jette Led SørensenJuliane Marie Centre for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jette.led.soerensen@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7320-2784
Doris ØstergaardCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Herlev Hospital, Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Vicki LeBlancDepartment of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Bent OttesenJuliane Marie Centre for Children, Women and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars KongeCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Rigshospitalet, Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter DieckmannCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Herlev Hospital, Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Cees Van der VleutenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200, Maastricht, Netherlands.
University of Copenhagen · DKMaastricht University · NLUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSimulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations. DISCUSSION: Non-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed. Based on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePatient SimulationAttitude of Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, ContinuingGroup ProcessesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationModels, EducationalPatient Care TeamPatient SafetyRetrospective StudiesWorkplaceContextCross-trainingCurriculumFidelityIn situ simulationInter-professionalSimulation-based medical education

Identifiers

PMID28109296
PMCPMC5251301
OpenAlexW2572086525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.