ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluation of the implementation of clinical simulation as a learning tool: an 18-month experience at a university hospital.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical simulation has become established as a key tool in healthcare education; however, evidence regarding its multidisciplinary implementation in university hospitals, integrating distinct professional profiles into institutional programs, remains limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction and perceived impact of clinical simulation following its structured implementation over 18 months in a university hospital. Materials and methods: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted, corresponding to Level 1 of the Kirkpatrick model. The study included attending physicians, medical residents, nursing staff, and nursing assistants from the Results: A total of 542 valid questionnaires were analyzed (mean age 37 ± 11 years; 76.9% women). Although all dimensions showed mean scores above 4.5/5, comparative analysis revealed statistically significant differences according to professional profile. The nursing group achieved the highest scores, particularly in activity prioritization (4.97 ± 0.17; Conclusion: The structured implementation of clinical simulation in a university hospital was associated with very high levels of acceptance among professionals from different categories, even in the absence of a dedicated simulation center. The multidisciplinary approach of this study-integrating attending physicians, residents, nurses, and nursing assistants-suggests the transversal utility of simulation in real healthcare teams within hospital continuing education. However, given the cross-sectional design and the focus on Level 1 outcomes, further research using longitudinal or controlled methodologies is required to confirm these findings and to objectively evaluate skill acquisition, transfer to clinical practice, and long-term healthcare impact.
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.