Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35725432›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

GENESISS 1-Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a scoping review and conceptual model.

Bryn Baxendale, Kerry Evans, Alison Cowley, Louise Bramley, Guilia Miles, Alastair Ross, Eleanore Dring, Joanne Cooper

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Recommendations for embedding simulation in health services.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Bryn BaxendaleTrent Simulation & Clinical Skills Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Notts, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-595X
Kerry EvansInstitute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. Kerry.evans1@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-9168
Alison CowleyNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Research and Innovation, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6858-475X
Louise BramleyInstitute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0425-1734
Guilia MilesTrent Simulation & Clinical Skills Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Notts, UK.
Alastair RossGlasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2952-3182
Eleanore DringInstitute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Joanne CooperInstitute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1340-3872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn-Situ Simulation (ISS) enables teams to rehearse and review practice in the clinical environment to facilitate knowledge transition, reflection and safe learning. There is increasing use of ISS in healthcare organisations for which patient safety and quality improvement are key drivers. However, the effectiveness of ISS interventions has not yet been fully demonstrated and requires further study to maximise impact. Cohesive programmatic implementation is lacking and efforts to standardise ISS terms and concepts, strengthen the evidence base and develop an integrated model of learning is required. The aim of this study was to explore the current evidence, theories and concepts associated with ISS across all areas of healthcare and develop a conceptual model to inform future ISS research and best practice guidance.

methodsA scoping review was undertaken with stakeholder feedback to develop a conceptual model for ISS. Medline, OpenGrey and Web of Science were searched in September 2018 and updated in December 2020. Data from the included scoping review studies were analysed descriptively and organised into categories based on the different motivations, concepts and theoretical approaches for ISS. Categories and concepts were further refined through accessing stakeholder feedback.

resultsThirty-eight papers were included in the scoping review. Papers reported the development and evaluation of ISS interventions. Stakeholder groups highlighted situations where ISS could be suitable to improve care and outcomes and identified contextual and practical factors for implementation. A conceptual model of ISS was developed which was organised into four themes: 1. To understand and explore why systematic events occur in complex settings; 2.To design and test new clinical spaces, equipment, information technologies and procedures; 3. To practice and develop capability in individual and team performance; 4. To assess competency in complex clinical settings.

conclusionsISS presents a promising approach to improve individual and team capabilities and system performance and address the 'practice-theory gap'. However, there are limitations associated with ISS such as the impact on the clinical setting and service provision, the reliance of having an open learning culture and availability of relevant expertise. ISS should be introduced with due consideration of the specific objectives and learning needs it is proposed to address. Effectiveness of ISS has not yet been established and further research is required to evaluate and disseminate the findings of ISS interventions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareLearningComputer SimulationHumansClinical trainingHealth professionsIn-situ simulationSimulated practiceSimulation-based education

Identifiers

PMID35725432
PMCPMC9208746

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.