Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42897701›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026

Simulation-enhanced interprofessional education in surgery - a scoping review.

Sean Stevens, Oscar Morice, Deborah Colville, Vijayaragavan Muralidharan, John Paige, Debra Nestel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sean StevensDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Austin Precinct, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia. sean.stevens@austin.org.au.
Oscar MoriceDivision of Surgery, Anaesthesia, and Procedural Medicine, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Deborah ColvilleDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Austin Precinct, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Vijayaragavan MuralidharanDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Austin Precinct, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
John PaigeDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, LSU Health New Orleans, 2021 Perdido Street, 8th floor, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Debra NestelDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Austin Precinct, Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSimulation-enhanced interprofessional education (Sim-IPE) has been successfully used in various health professions and shown to improve communication and teamwork. Surgery, where preventable serious adverse outcomes are often attributed to issues with communication and teamwork, represents a compelling context for Sim-IPE. However, implementing Sim-IPE in surgery requires investment in faculty development, equipment and facilities while incurring the cost of reduced staff availability and theatre productivity during simulation activity. We conducted a scoping review to characterise how Sim-IPE in surgery is practised and researched.

methodsThis scoping review followed the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley. Reporting followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and ERIC) were searched for records pertaining to Sim-IPE in surgery published after 1st January 2000 and in English.

resultsThe final analysis included 81 articles. Simulation scenarios showed a rich variety of combinations of professions, disciplines, training levels and settings. While most scenarios used manikins (N = 54, 75%), other modalities included simulated participants, cadavers, task trainers, computers, laparoscopic simulators, role play and animal models with many scenarios using multiple modalities (N = 20, 27.8%). Of studies reporting on evaluation outcome, almost half (N = 32, 47.1%) were limited to participants' views of their learning experience and satisfaction with the program. Few studies reported using educational theory to inform Sim-IPE design and even fewer used theoretical frameworks in the research design. Facilitators for implementing Sim-IPE in surgery included a skilled faculty, institutional support and evidence of benefit. Barriers included lack of protected training time, restricted access to facilities and unreliable ongoing funding. DISCUSSION: Studies described a rich variety of Sim-IPE scenarios, including multiple professions, disciplines, training levels, simulation modalities and settings, facilitating training in a broad range of skills reflective of the complexity of modern surgical care. While barriers such as time, funding, and cultural resistance to simulation are commonly reported in the simulation-based education literature, these issues may be amplified in surgery due to surgical service pressures and traditional hierarchies (e.g. surgeon as "captain of the ship"). Overcoming these barriers will likely require structural (policy, funding, scheduling) and cultural (leadership, team identity) change.

Indexed as

Health professions education (HPE)Interprofessional education (IPE)Simulation-based education (SBE)Simulation-based training (SBT)Simulation-enhanced interprofessional education (Sim-IPE)surgery

Identifiers

PMID42897701
PMCPMC13681912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.