ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
From prototype to national standard: a governance framework for scaling simulation-based bronchoscopy training.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimulation-based education can improve procedural training, but national adoption depends on governance, scalability, quality assurance, and alignment with postgraduate certification requirements. This Advancing Simulation Practice report describes how bronchoscopy simulation developed from a pilot educational initiative into a mandatory national component of postgraduate pulmonary medicine training. MAIN BODY: We present a practice-based implementation account of a national reform in procedural training, using bronchoscopy as the index procedure. Rather than testing an effectiveness hypothesis, we examine programme design, governance, scale-up, instructor development, quality assurance, and regulatory embedding. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the RE-AIM framework were used to structure reflection on implementation determinants and programme outcomes, rather than as prospectively applied measurement instruments. The national simulation programme trained 402 physicians across procedural specialties, supported by 85 nationally certified instructors, and delivered 184 structured training cycles comprising 5,999 instructional hours. The bronchoscopy component enrolled 186 pulmonary specialty trainees, of whom 185 completed the course; 46 instructors were certified to deliver bronchoscopy training. Post-course evaluations showed high perceived relevance and increased self-reported confidence, which are interpreted as acceptability and early implementation indicators rather than evidence of clinical competence. Following national evaluation, bronchoscopy simulation was incorporated in 2024 as a mandatory component of postgraduate specialisation training in pulmonary diseases. Scale-up was supported by national-level European Union structural funding for health workforce development and simulation infrastructure, including POWER project POWR.04.03.00-00-0291/16, in which bronchoscopy formed one component of broader endoscopic simulation capacity.
conclusionThe main contribution of this programme was the governance pathway that enabled simulation to progress from local innovation to national training policy. Sustainable implementation depended on staged scale-up, explicit curriculum design, instructor certification, common standard operating procedures, external quality assurance, distributed simulation-centre capacity, and alignment with regulatory postgraduate training requirements. Future evaluation should examine clinical transfer, workplace performance, and patient-safety outcomes.
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.