Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35818052›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2022

GENESISS 2-Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a systematic mapping review.

Kerry Evans, Jenny Woodruff, Alison Cowley, Louise Bramley, Giulia Miles, Alastair Ross, Joanne Cooper, Bryn Baxendale

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Kerry EvansNottingham University Hospitals Trust, Institute of Care Excellence, Nottingham, UK. Kerry.evans1@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-9168
Jenny WoodruffBirmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Alison CowleyNottingham University Hospitals Trust, Research & Innovation, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6858-475X
Louise BramleyNottingham University Hospitals Trust, Institute of Care Excellence, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0425-1734
Giulia 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
Joanne CooperNottingham University Hospitals Trust, Institute of Care Excellence, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1340-3872
Bryn BaxendaleTrent Simulation & Clinical Skills Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Notts, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3841-595X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn-situ simulation is increasingly employed in healthcare settings to support learning and improve patient, staff and organisational outcomes. It can help participants to problem solve within real, dynamic and familiar clinical settings, develop effective multidisciplinary team working and facilitates learning into practice. There is nevertheless a reported lack of a standardised and cohesive approach across healthcare organisations. The aim of this systematic mapping review was to explore and map the current evidence base for in-situ interventions, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and evaluation questions.

methodsA systematic mapping review of published in-situ simulation literature was conducted. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, MIDIRS and ProQuest databases to identify all relevant literature from inception to October 2020. Relevant papers were retrieved, reviewed and extracted data were organised into broad themes.

resultsSixty-nine papers were included in the mapping review. In-situ simulation is used 1) as an assessment tool; 2) to assess and promote system readiness and safety cultures; 3) to improve clinical skills and patient outcomes; 4) to improve non-technical skills (NTS), knowledge and confidence. Most studies included were observational and assessed individual, team or departmental performance against clinical standards. There was considerable variation in assessment methods, length of study and the frequency of interventions.

conclusionsThis mapping highlights various in-situ simulation approaches designed to address a range of objectives in healthcare settings; most studies report in-situ simulation to be feasible and beneficial in addressing various learning and improvement objectives. There is a lack of consensus for implementing and evaluating in-situ simulation and further studies are required to identify potential benefits and impacts on patient outcomes. In-situ simulation studies need to include detailed demographic and contextual data to consider transferability across care settings and teams and to assess possible confounding factors. Valid and reliable data collection tools should be developed to capture the complexity of team and individual performance in real settings. Research should focus on identifying the optimal frequency and length of in-situ simulations to improve outcomes and maximize participant experience.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceDelivery of Health CareHumansLearningClinical trainingHealth professionsIn-situ simulation; simulation-based educationSimulated practice

Identifiers

PMID35818052
PMCPMC9272657

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.