Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31798236›Full record

ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock

The 2019 WACEM Expert Document on Hybrid Simulation for Transforming Health-care Simulation Through "Mixing and Matching".

Fatimah Lateef, Xin Yi Too

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Art of Sim-Making: What to Learn from Film-Making.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
    Article
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

2 authors.

Fatimah LateefDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Xin Yi TooSinghealth Duke-NUS Institute of Medical Simulation, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the multitude of options available under the umbrella of "simulation" today, we have a larger repertoire of choices in our educational journey and outreach. These provide a platform for us to really transform health-care simulation from the traditional, unimodality simulation, to more complex, high fidelity, integrated, and engaging multimodality techniques. The main thrust must be to enhance clinical decision-making in patient care, to solve real-world clinical problems. Hybrid simulation (HS) utilizes at least two different simulation modalities, whereby combining them will enable one type of simulation modality to enhance the other, with the proper alignment, coordination, and interfacing between the modalities. Although the term is often used interchangeably, HS is slightly different from multimodality simulation. The latter refers to the use of multiple types of simulation in the same scenario or place. The main objectives for using HS have to be as follows: (1) for the acquisition of knowledge and skills by the best combination of methodologies, (2) for clinical performance improvement at all levels of care through the creation of as close as possible to real-world situation and problems, (3) to be able to sustain motivation and passion of our spectrum learners in their educational continuum, and (4) to provide a rich, exciting, and stimulating learning platform and environment, which can trigger deep learning and understanding. This article will also share some examples and cases utilizing HS in transforming health-care simulation.

Indexed as

Hybrid simulationmanikinmodalitystandardized patientstransformative learning

Identifiers

PMID31798236
PMCPMC6883504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.