Search

Background Simulation-based education in healthcare encompasses a wide array of modalities aimed at providing realistic clinical experiences supported by meticulously designed scenarios. The French-speaking Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SoFraSimS) has developed guidelines to assist educators in the design of scenarios for manikin- or simulated participant- based immersive simulation and procedural simulation, the three mainly used modalities.Methods After establishing a French-speaking group of experts within the SoFraSimS network, we performed an extensive literature review with theory-informed practices and personal experiences. We used this approach identify the essential criteria for practice-based scenario design within the three simulation modalities.Results We present three comprehensive templates for creating innovative scenarios and simulation sessions, each tailored to the specific characteristics of a simulation modality. The SoFraSimS templates include five sections distributed between the three modalities. The first section contextualizes the scenario by describing the practicalities of the setting, the instructors and learners, and its connection to the educational program. The second section outlines the learning objectives. The third lists all the elements necessary during the preparation phase, describing the educational method used for procedural simulation (such as demonstration, discovery, mastery learning, and deliberate practice). The fourth section addresses the simulation phase, detailing the behaviors the instructor aims to analyze, the embedded triggers, and the anticipated impact on simulation proceedings (natural feedback). This ensures maximum control over the learning experience. Finally, the fifth section compiles elements for post-simulation modifications to enhance future iterations.Conclusion We trust that these guidelines will prove valuable to educators seeking to implement simulation-based education and contribute to the standardization of scenarios for healthcare students and professionals. This standardization aims to facilitate communication, comparison of practices and collaboration across different learning and healthcare institutions.

Abstract Background The technique of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) puncture is currently taught by colleagues within hemodialysis units. Even if the main principles of the technique are well known and common to all hemodialysis units, strong rationales are still missing to standardize fine practices such as the relative position of the needles, the angle of the needle at puncture, and the position of the bevel at the time of puncture and after the needle is in the vascular lumen. Methods We are conducting a prospective, comparative, center-randomized, multicenter study involving 8 hemodialysis centers. The primary objective is to compare the number of adverse events related to AVF puncture between a group receiving theoretical training plus simulation-based training (4 centers) and a group receiving only theoretical training (4 centers). The study will include all adult patients who are scheduled to have an AVF puncture performed by a hemodialysis-trained nurse during a scheduled chronic dialysis session. Discussion We hypothesize that a training program for nurses on the AVF approach in procedural simulation versus theoretical input alone would decrease the adverse events related to AVF punctures and would be beneficial for the patient. This study is innovative for several reasons. First, simulation-based training in continuing education among professionals is not widely used. Furthermore, training allows for the standardization of practices within the team, both technically and relationally. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05302505 . Registered on March 17, 2022.

Abstract Background Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, “the use of simulation for summative assessment” requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start. Methods First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee. Results Seven topics were selected by the task force: “What can be assessed in simulation?”, “Assessment tools for SBSA”, “Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process”, “Scenarios for SBSA”, “Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA”, “Trainers for SBSA”, and “Implementation of SBSA in healthcare”. Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted. Conclusion Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature (“What can be assessed in simulation?”), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion (“Assessment tools for SBSA”, “Scenarios for SBSA”, “Implementation of SBSA in healthcare”), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence (“Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process”, “Debriefing for SBSA”, “Trainers for SBSA”). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.