ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
Readiness planning: how to go beyond "buy-in" to achieve curricular success and front-line performance.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching raters to see: A faculty development innovation for robust assessment in health professions education.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
- Connecting data science and translational simulation.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulation program staff and leadership often struggle to partner with front-line healthcare workers, their managers, and health system leaders. Simulation-based learning programs are too often seen as burdensome add-ons rather than essential mechanisms supporting clinical workforce readiness. Healthcare system leaders grappling with declining morale, economic pressure, and too few qualified staff often don't see how simulation can help them, and we simulation program leaders can't seem to bridge this gap. Without clear guidance from front-line clinicians and leaders, the challenge of building and maintaining sustainably relevant simulation offerings can seem overwhelming. We argue that three blind spots have limited our ability to see the path to collaborations that support front-line workforce readiness: We wrongly assume that our rigor in designing and delivering programs will lead to front-line participant engagement and positive impact, we overestimate the existence of shared priorities, mindsets, and expertise with our would-be partners, and we contribute to building a façade of superficial education compliance that distracts from vital skill development. How do we design simulation-based training programs that are valued, supported, and sustained by key partners over time? (1) By seeing ourselves as partners first and designers second; (2) by using a boundary spanning design process that shifts the primary psychological ownership of training outcomes to our partners; and (3) by focusing this shared design process on workforce readiness for the situations that our healthcare partners care about most. Drawing on lessons from more than 800 readiness plans developed by participants in our courses and the authors' successes and mistakes in partnering with healthcare teams for front-line readiness, we introduce the concepts, commitments, and practices of "readiness planning" along with three detailed examples of readiness planning in action.
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.