ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Integrating non-technical skills into undergraduate medical simulation: a scoping review and thematic analysis of current practices.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From operating room to leadership room: a systematic review of simulation-based interventions for leadership development in general surgery.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Error Rates in Technical Skills and Contextual Skills in a Large-Scale Peer-Assessed Clinical Skills Examination.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Video-Assisted Debriefing for Non-Technical Skills Training in Emergency Medicine Clerkships: A Mixed-Methods Feasibility Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Integrating non-technical skills into undergraduate medical simulation: a scoping review and thematic analysis of current practices.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-technical skills (NTS) play a crucial role in reducing patient harm. In light of this, medical schools are now integrating NTS into their undergraduate curricula to encourage efficiency and reduce human errors, particularly during highly stressful scenarios. Utilising medical simulations has become prevalent for honing these skills in a controlled environment. However, a lack of guidance on how best to design and deliver effective NTS training leads to inconsistencies in quality and outcomes. Therefore, this review aims to examine current practices in simulation-based NTS training for medical students to collate evidence-informed strategies for enhancing its effectiveness.
methodsA scoping review was carried out according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A search strategy was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 17th June 2025. A thematic analysis of eligible studies identified recurring themes, leading to a conceptual model for the current delivery of NTS training.
resultsThe screening process yielded 51 articles and commonly occurring themes were synthesised: Simulation setup, simulation modality, post-simulation activity, observational tools for NTS and learning environment. We identified several key practice points that are essential for the successful implementation of NTS training. These include pre-simulation briefings, appropriate fidelity, and debriefing sessions which collectively form the foundation for effective training outcomes.
conclusionThe resulting themes highlight the effective strategies currently employed for NTS training in undergraduate medical simulation. Educators will be able to use these to design and implement consistent, effective NTS training.
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.