ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Authentic roles matter: how in situ simulation influences fidelity, psychological safety, and learning transfer.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 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
backgroundIn situ simulation (ISS) enables healthcare teams to test systems, identify safety threats, and strengthen interprofessional practice. Compared with off-site simulation (OSS), ISS may promote greater fidelity and transfer of learning. Cross-training, where participants adopt roles outside their profession, is widely used in healthcare education but remains controversial, with little evidence on how participants perceive its impact.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study in a Danish teaching hospital intensive care unit, using ethnographic observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews. Sixteen interviews with physicians and nurses, supported by audio recordings of debriefings, were thematically analysed using a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach with consensus coding.
resultsFour themes were identified: fidelity, psychological safety, transfer, and cross-training. Participants described fidelity as multidimensional, including environmental, team, scenario, time, and resource aspects. ISS was perceived as more realistic and immersive than OSS, supporting deeper engagement and learning. PS was enhanced by familiarity with colleagues and environment, limited observation, and absence of cross-training. Facilitator competence at facilitating politely and creating room for all participants to speak up strongly influenced PS. ISS was viewed as promoting greater transfer of technical and social-cognitive skills to clinical practice, with some learning leading to organisational change. Cross-training was met with mixed reactions. Most participants, especially junior staff, preferred training in authentic roles, citing negative effects on PS and learning. More experienced clinicians occasionally valued cross-training for its reflective potential, though often only in less advanced roles.
conclusionIn situ simulation promotes learning by aligning fidelity, psychological safety, and transfer within participants' authentic clinical roles and environments. Cross-training was frequently perceived as undermining both learning and psychological safety, particularly among less experienced staff, suggesting a misalignment between role substitution and learners' developmental needs. Careful scenario design emphasising authentic roles, realistic fidelity, and skilled facilitation may optimise simulation learning outcome, Cross-training should be applied selectively, with explicit attention to learners' experience levels, role authenticity, and potential impacts on psychological safety.
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.