Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578052›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2022

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.

Clément Buléon, Laurent Mattatia, Rebecca D Minehart, Jenny W Rudolph, Fernande J Lois, Erwan Guillouet, Anne-Laure Philippon, Olivier Brissaud, Antoine Lefevre-Scelles, Dan Benhamou and 24 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The evolution of cardiothoracic surgery training: from apprenticeship to AI-assisted simulation.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Simulation-based medical education in Canadian anesthesiology academic institutions: a national survey.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

34 authors.

Clément BuléonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Caen Normandy University Hospital, 6th Floor, Caen, France. clement.buleon@unicaen.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4550-3827
Laurent MattatiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Rebecca D MinehartCenter for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, USA.
Jenny W RudolphCenter for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, USA.
Fernande J LoisDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Liège University Hospital, Liège, Belgique.
Erwan GuillouetDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Caen Normandy University Hospital, 6th Floor, Caen, France.
Anne-Laure PhilipponDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Pitié Salpêtrière University Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
Olivier BrissaudDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Antoine Lefevre-ScellesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Dan BenhamouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Kremlin Bicêtre University Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
François LecomteDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cochin University Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
The SoFraSimS Assessment With Simulation Group
Anne Bellot
Isabelle Crublé
Guillaume Philippot
Thierry Vanderlinden
Sébastien Batrancourt
Claire Boithias-Guerot
Jean Bréaud
Philine de Vries
Louis Sibert
Thierry Sécheresse
Virginie Boulant
Louis Delamarre
Laurent Grillet
Marianne Jund
Christophe Mathurin
Jacques Berthod
Blaise Debien
Olivier Gacia
Guillaume Der Sahakian
Sylvain Boet
Denis Oriot
Jean-Michel Chabot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.

methodsFirst, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.

resultsSeven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.

conclusionOur results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

Indexed as

AssessmentCompetency-based educationEducationMedical educationSimulationSummative

Identifiers

PMID36578052
PMCPMC9795938

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.