Search

Purpose : There is poor reporting of the cost of simulation and greater transparency is needed. The primary study aim was to conduct a financial analysis of the university/training institution costs associated with a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology students. The secondary aim was to consider the economic costs of the model. Method : Costs associated with the delivery of a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology students from six Australian universities were collected regarding: (a) pre-program training, (b) personnel, (c) room hire, (d) equipment, and (e) consumables. Both financial costs and economic costs (Australian dollar, at June 2017) were calculated per university site, and per student. Result : The simulation program was run 21 times involving 176 students. Average total financial cost per program ranged from $4717 to $11 425, with cost variation primarily attributed to local labour costs and various use of in-kind support. Average financial cost per student was $859 (range $683-$1087), however this was almost double ($1461 per student, range $857-$2019) in the economic cost calculation. Personnel was the largest contributing cost component accounting for 76.6% of financial costs. Personnel was also the highest contributing cost in the economic analysis, followed by room hire. Conclusion : This study provides clarity regarding financial and economic costing for a 5-day simulation-based learning program. These data can help universities consider potential up-front financial costs, and well as strategies for financial cost minimisation, when implementing simulation-based learning within the university context.

Purpose: Simulation is increasingly used within speech-language pathology education. Research has primarily explored students' perceptions of learning in simulation. The aim of this study was to determine if speech-language pathology students achieved a statistically-equivalent level of competency when a mean of 20% of placement time was replaced with simulation compared to placements without a simulation component., Method: This non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involved students from six Australian universities. Students were randomised to either a simulation + traditional placement group attending 5 days of simulation prior to their traditional placement, or a traditional only placement group. Their end-placement clinical competency was assessed using Competency Assessment in Speech Pathology (COMPASS ® )., Result: Final data were available for 325 students: 150 students in traditional placements, 138 students in protocol-compliant simulation + traditional placements, and 37 students in non-protocol simulation + traditional placements. There were no statistically significant differences between groups (traditional vs protocol-compliant simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon z  = 1.23, df  = 286, p  = 0.22; traditional vs intention-to-treat simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon z  = 0.23, df  = 323, p  = 0.81)., Conclusion: This research contributes to the evidence base which suggests that simulation can partially replace traditional placement time for speech-language pathology students without loss of competency, substantiating its value as an alternative placement model in speech-language pathology programmes.