Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30065851›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2018

A systematic literature review of simulation models for non-technical skill training in healthcare logistics.

Cevin Zhang, Chen Zhang, Thomas Grandits, Karin Pukk Härenstam, Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, Sebastiaan Meijer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Non-Technical Skills in Social Networks: The Spread of Safety Communication and Teamwork in a Warehouse.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cevin Zhang
Chen Zhang *1School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, 2010, Röntgenvägen 1, 14152 Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4057-4124
Thomas Grandits2School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11, 14152 Huddinge, Sweden.
Karin Pukk Härenstam3Pediatric Emergency Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Tomtebodavägen 18a, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden.
Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge5School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Royal Institute of Technology, Mariekällgatan 3, 15144 Södertälje, Sweden.
Sebastiaan Meijer2School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11, 14152 Huddinge, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Resource allocation in patient care relies heavily on individual judgements of healthcare professionals. Such professionals perform coordinating functions by managing the timing and execution of a multitude of care processes for multiple patients. Based on advances in simulation, new technologies that could be used for establishing realistic representations have been developed. These simulations can be used to facilitate understanding of various situations, coordination training and education in logistics, decision-making processes, and design aspects of the healthcare system. However, no study in the literature has synthesized the types of simulations models available for non-technical skills training and coordination of care. Methods: A systematic literature review, following the PRISMA guidelines, was performed to identify simulation models that could be used for training individuals in operative logistical coordination that occurs on a daily basis. This article reviewed papers of simulation in healthcare logistics presented in the Web of Science Core Collections, ACM digital library, and JSTOR databases. We conducted a screening process to gather relevant papers as the knowledge foundation of our literature study. The screening process involved a query-based identification of papers and an assessment of relevance and quality. Results: Two hundred ninety-four papers met the inclusion criteria. The review showed that different types of simulation models can be used for constructing scenarios for addressing different types of problems, primarily for training and education sessions. The papers identified were classified according to their utilized paradigm and focus areas. (1) Discrete-event simulation in single-category and single-unit scenarios formed the most dominant approach to developing healthcare simulations and dominated all other categories by a large margin. (2) As we approached a systems perspective (cross-departmental and cross-institutional), discrete-event simulation became less popular and is complemented by system dynamics or hybrid modeling. (3) Agent-based simulations and participatory simulations have increased in absolute terms, but the share of these modeling techniques among all simulations in this field remains low. Conclusions: An extensive study analyzing the literature on simulation in healthcare logistics indicates a growth in the number of examples demonstrating how simulation can be used in healthcare settings. Results show that the majority of studies create situations in which non-technical skills of managers, coordinators, and decision makers can be trained. However, more system-level and complex system-based approaches are limited and use methods other than discrete-event simulation.

Indexed as

Logistical simulationsNon-technical skillsQualitySafety

Identifiers

PMID30065851
PMCPMC6062859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.