Simulation-based education workshop: perceptions of participants

Rano Mal Piryani, Suneel Piryani, Unisha Shrestha, Asmita Acharya, Srijana Kanskar, Mandira Shahi, Jeny Kayastha, Amrita Chaulagain, Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Sangha Ratna Bajracharya, Rano Mal Piryani, Suneel Piryani, Unisha Shrestha, Asmita Acharya, Srijana Kanskar, Mandira Shahi, Jeny Kayastha, Amrita Chaulagain, Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Sangha Ratna Bajracharya

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based education (SBE) is increasingly endorsed as an educational strategy. It allows health-care professionals to practice clinical skills within a safe learning environment, and requires devices for simulation or simulated patients, trained teachers, and an appropriate environment. The objective of this study was to evaluate perceptions of participants on SBE and an SBE workshop.

Methods: A 1-day SBE workshop was conducted on September 4, 2018, in collaboration with Laerdal Global Health Nepal and the National Centre for Health Professions Education (NCHPE), Institute of Medicine, Kathmandu, Nepal. Semistructured pretest and posttest questionnaires were used to evaluate the perceptions of participants regarding SBE and the effectiveness of the workshop. Data were analyzed using SPSS 21.

Results: The mean difference in participant perceptions of SBE before and after participation in the workshop was significant (P<0.05) on seven statements: enhances communication skills (pretest 4.53±0.72, posttest 4.84±0.75; P=0.03), helps in seeing and managing even rarest of cases (pretest 3.59±1.00, posttest 4.21±0.92; P=0.02), overcomes the problem of uncooperative patients (pretest 3.12±0.93, posttest 3.95±1.22; P=0.004), increases confidence of students in dealing with real patients (pretest 4.29±0.77, posttest 4.79±0.42; P=0.041), enables preparation of rating scales for skills and attitude evaluation (pretest 3.76±0.83, posttest 4.11±0.76; P=0.049), provides immediate feedback during simulation (pretest 4.06±0.9, posttest 4.58±0.51; P=0.016), and keeps materials/equipment ready before simulation (pretest 4.29±0.68, posttest 4.79±0.53; P=0.007). Mean scores for participant feedback on the workshop using a Likert scale of 1-5 (5= strongly agree, 1= strongly disagree) were notable: objective of workshop fulfilled (4.16±0.688), session very interesting (4.37±0.597), session useful for future job (4.47±0.513), scenario relevant to subject (4.21±0.787), what I learnt will be useful in practice (4.05±0.78), resource persons/facilitators were helpful and effective (4.37±0.597), professional (4.42±0.507), and answered all questions (4.32±0.478), and course content was presented clearly (4.26±0.452). Almost all participants found the workshop useful and well presented, and suggested conducting such workshops frequently.

Conclusion: The SBE workshop produced substantial differences in perceptions of participants. Participants found the workshop effective in improving knowledge and understanding of SBE.

Keywords: evaluation; faculty; perception; simulation education; workshop.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

    1. Jones F. Passos-Neto CE,Braguiroli OFM. Simulation in medical education: brief history and methodology. PPCR. 2015;1(2):56–63.
    1. AlHarbi WM. Simulation-based medical education: theory and practice. Int J Scientific & Eng Res. 2016;7(5):249–253.
    1. Chacko TV. Simulation‐based medical education: using best practices and curriculum mapping to maximize educational benefits in the context of shift toward competency‐based medical education. Arch Med Health Sci. 2017;5:9‐15.
    1. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthcare. 2007. Summer;2(2):115–125. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539
    1. Phrampus PE. Simulation and integration into patient safety systems. Simul Healthcare. 2018;13(4):225–226. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000332
    1. Sørensen JL, Østergaard D, LeBlanc V, et al. Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:20. doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0838-3
    1. Al Kuwari KM. Simulation-based medical education. Bahrain Med Bulletin. 2018;40(1):9–10. doi:10.12816/0047451
    1. Burns CL. Using debriefing and feedback in simulation to improve participant performance: an educator’s perspective. Int J Med Edu. 2015;6:118–120. doi:10.5116/ijme.55fb.3d3a
    1. Cheng A, Kessler D, Mackinnon R, et al. Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extension to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. SimulHealthc. 2016;11(4):238–248.
    1. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach. 2013;35(10):e1511–30. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632
    1. Riley RH, Grauze AM, Chinnery C, Horely RA, Trewhella NH. Three years of CASMS: the world’s busiest medical simulation centre. Med J Aust. 2003;179(11–12):626–630.
    1. Lawson S, Reid J, Morrow M, Gardiner K. Simulation-based education and human factors training in postgraduate medical education: a Northern Ireland perspective. Ulster Med J. 2018;87(3):163–167.
    1. Nuzhat A, Salem RO, Al Shehri FN, Al Hamdan N. Role and challenges of simulation in undergraduate curriculum. Med Teach. 2014;36(Suppl 1):S69–S73. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.886017
    1. Weller JM, Nestel D, Marshall SD, Brooks PM, Conn JJ. Simulation in clinical teaching and learning. Med J Aust. 2012;196(9):594. doi:10.5694/mja10.11474
    1. Pai D. Use of simulation for undergraduate medical education. Int J Adv Med Health Res. 2018;5(1):3‐6. doi:10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_63_17
    1. Ayres-De-Campos D. Simulation-based training in obstetrics and gynecology. Fvv in Obgyn. 2012;Monograph:28–32.
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003‐2009. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):50‐63.
    1. Ahmed S, Al-Mously N, Al-Senani F, Zafar M, Ahmed M. Medical teachers’ perception towards simulation-based medical education: a multicenter study in Saudi Arabia. Med Teach. 2016;38(Suppl1):S37–S44. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1142513
    1. Salam A, Saiboon IM, Jaafar MJ, et al. Tutors perception on a training workshop on simulation based medical education. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2016;15(2):195–200. doi:10.3329/bjms.v15i2.28653
    1. Sollid SJM, Dieckman P, Aase K, Søreide E, Ringsted C, Østergaard D. Five topics health care simulation can address to improve patient safety: results from a consensus process. J Patient Saf. 2016. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000254 Published online 2016.
    1. Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health. Quality Assurance and Standards Guidelines for Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning. Lichfield: The Association for Simulated Practice in Healthcare (ASPiH); 2014.
    1. Wong AHW, Gang M, Szyld D, Mahoney H. Making an “attitude adjustment”- using a simulation-enhanced inter-professional education strategy to improve attitude toward teamwork and communication. Sim Healthcare. 2016;11(2):117–125. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000133
    1. Ryall T, Judd BK, Gordon CJ. Simulation-based assessments in health professional education: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:69–82. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S94676
    1. Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Erwin PJ, Cook DA. Linking simulation- based educational assessments and patient-related outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2015;90:246–256. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000549
    1. Burton R, Hope A. Simulation based education and expansive learning in health professional education: a discussion. J Appl Learn Teach. 2018;1(1):25–34.
    1. Purva M, Nicklin J. ASPiH standards for simulation-based education: process of consultation, design and implementation. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2018;4(Suppl 2):A86-A94.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다