ReviewBMC medical education2024
Preparing clinicians for practice: effectiveness and design of on-call simulation.
Review in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prepare medical graduates for residency through near-peer teaching: addressing reciprocal determinants.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Re-Imagining Clinical Reasoning: An Updated Cognitive Framework for Real-World Medical Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFinal year medical students and postgraduate doctors regularly contend with feelings of under-preparedness when transitioning into new areas of clinical practice. This lack of confidence is most evident in the context of on-call work which frequently requires sound clinical prioritisation, rigorous decision making and the management of acutely unwell patients, often with reduced senior support and staffing. This has prompted the emergence of on-call simulation which seeks to enhance participant confidence in performing on-call tasks and facilitate the development of key clinical and non-technical skills. This narrative review examined the use of on-call simulation in medical student and newly qualified doctor cohorts, its effectiveness in achieving its stated outcomes and to identify novel areas for the development of existing models.
methodA search strategy was developed in conjunction with a specialist medical librarian. OVID Medline and Embase searches identified articles related to the use and design of on-call simulation in medical education with no restrictions placed upon date or language of publication. Key findings from articles were summarised to develop comprehensive themes for discussion.
resultsTwenty Three unique publications were reviewed which unanimously reported that on-call simulation had a positive effect on self-reported participant confidence in performing on-call roles. Furthermore the value on-call simulation when used as an induction activity was also evident. However, there was limited evidence around improved patient and performance outcomes following simulation. It also remains resource intensive as an educational tool and there is a distinct absence of interprofessional education in current models.
conclusionsWe concluded that on-call simulation must adopt an interprofessional educational approach, incorporating other clinical roles. Further studies are needed to characterise the impact on patient outcomes. It remains highly useful as a confidence-boosting induction activity, particularly in specialities where clinical exposure is limited. Virtual and tabletop simulation formats, could potentially address the resource burden of manikin-based models, particularly with ever growing demands on medical educators and the expansion of training posts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.