ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
A survey of healthcare simulation activities in the Republic of Ireland.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Health and safety considerations for healthcare simulation: a scoping review of published literature.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare simulation is commonly delivered through two distinct settings: dedicated education and training organisations and typically resource-constrained clinical environments.
aimsGiven the need for strategic national guidance and equitable resource allocation, this study aimed to describe and compare simulation activities across these two simulation environments in Ireland.
methodsA cross-sectional descriptive survey design was adopted, with a 19-item survey administered to individuals who deliver/design healthcare simulation between April-July 2024. Data were analysed descriptively and compared between Clinical Sites and Education and Training Organisations in terms of; location of activities, learner specialty/mix, resources, and simulationist training, role and protected time.
resultsAcross 127 responses, learners from Nursing and/or Midwifery professions or the Emergency Medicine specialty were most frequently engaged. Clinical Site-based simulationists (N = 83) frequently delivered interprofessional activities (63.9%), in the clinical environment (78.3%), without any funding (45.8%). Conversely, Education and Training Organisations (N = 44) were typically single-profession focused (72.7%), with significantly better access to dedicated simulation spaces (79.5%), core funding (86.4%) and equipment (e.g., task trainers, virtual, animal simulators). Overall, 61.4% of all simulationists lacked formal training (i.e., formal qualification/fellowship). While most Clinical-based simulationists reported having no protected time (62.7%), Education and Training Organisation-based simulationists typically had simulation/education enshrined in job specifications (65.9% versus 48.2%) and better protected time (average of 32.5 protected hours versus 5 in Clinical Sites).
conclusionsResolving this disparity requires a national, structured strategy, supported organisationally, that professionalises clinical simulation roles with protected time, allocates resources based on need, and mandates system-wide faculty development and collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42730908What 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.