Category Archives: design

February 2, 2026 · 11:30 am

Designing for Learner Success: 5 Ways of Ensuring Simulations are Effective Student-Centered Learning Environments

Soooooo, first off. Happy 2026 to you! I trust it is going well so far. I have been doing some studying about some of the learning theories and educational principles associated with simulation and higher education recently. As such, I have been making many new connections in my mind about the ways that healthcare simulation deeply connects to evidence and theory regarding higher education, and surprisingly to the K-12 education world. So this post is a bit more theoretical than usual, but it is representative of some of the course work that I am currently enjoying! I hope you share the same enthusiasm.

If you have worked in healthcare simulation for any length of time, you may have heard the phrase “guide on the side, not sage on the stage” which comes from Alison Kings 1993 publication (1) that suggested college level teaching move toward a constructivist theory design. Some argue she set the stage for the flipped classroom, where lecture content is moved outside the classroom to make room for active, guided learning during class time. It is often repeated, but do we truly practice it? In the rush to employ high-technology manikins or arrange the perfect clinical fidelity, it is easy to focus on the teaching rather than the learning.

To truly maximize the potential of our simulation center education programs, we need to shift our perspective toward Student-Centered Learning Environments (SCLEs) as described by Jonassen & Land (2). According to the learning sciences, SCLEs are not just about letting learners “figure it out” on their own; they are grounded designs where learners negotiate meaning, engage in authentic problems, and utilize scaffolding to bridge the gap between novice and expert where we serve as facilitators.

So then, how do we ensure our healthcare simulations function as true student-centered environments? Here are a few approaches that blend educational theory with practical simulation design.

1. Respect the “Learner’s Scenario”

In a previous post, I discussed how the word “scenario” means different things to different people. To the educator, it is a blueprint; to the operations specialist, it is a technical playbook. But to the learner, the scenario is the experience.

A core assumption of SCLEs is the “centrality of the learner”. While we may set external goals, the learner ultimately determines how to proceed based on their individual needs and the questions they generate. To support this, we must design scenarios that allow for agency. We must move away from linear, step-by-step exercises, which behaviorist theories might favor, and toward open-ended inquiry where learners identify gaps in their own knowledge and seek evidence to resolve them. After all, such design mimics the real-world practice of medicine and diagnostic processes in all of healthcare.

2. Recognize Scenarios as “Practice Fields” (But Mind the Cognitive Load!)

We often strive for realism, but we must be careful. Student-centered learning is rooted in “situated cognition,” meaning knowledge is inextricably tied to the context in which it is used. We want our simulations to act as “practice fields”, or environments where learners can engage in the authentic work of professionals. Think diagnosing a condition, managing a code, displaying empathy, or any other aspect of healthcare that we wish our learners to show us their abilities.

However, authenticity does not mean clutter. As I have written before, cognitive load is a currency that must be spent wisely. If we overload a scenario with irrelevant noise or “too much stuff” in the name of realism, we risk overwhelming the learner. A true student-centered design simplifies the authentic practice just enough to make it accessible, reducing the complexity without removing the core challenge. This allows the learner to focus on the learning objectives rather than processing extraneous details.

3. Anchor Learning in Prior Experience

You cannot center a curriculum on a student if you do not know where they are starting. Learners come to us with tacit, often naive beliefs rooted in their everyday experiences. Effective SCLEs use “anchored instruction” to connect new concepts to these familiar contexts.

In the absence of harboring true expertise in the needs of your intended learners, a robust needs assessment is the cornerstone of simulation design. As I have discussed in previous posts there are many pathways by which this can be accomplished. By gathering data through surveys or interviews, we identify the specific gaps between current outcomes and desired goals. This allows us to tailor the simulation to the learner’s “Zone of Proximal Development” ensuring the challenge is neither too boring nor too overwhelming. When we validate a learner’s prior experience, we empower them to take ownership of the inquiry.

4. Scaffolding: The Art of Optimal Guidance

There is a misconception that student-centered learning means “minimal guidance.” In reality, it requires optimal guidance. In the simulation world, we often provide this through scaffolding, or constructing the learner journey in a building block adventure that ultimately help learners manage the complexity of the task.

Scaffolding in simulation takes many forms:

  • Pre-Simulation Learning Assignments: Helps learners activate prior knowledge, identify gaps, and form initial mental models before entering the simulation. By establishing a shared baseline of concepts, terminology, and expectations, these assignments help level the playing field among participants, allowing the simulation itself to focus on higher-order reasoning,  and sensemaking rather than uneven content familiarity.
  • Conceptual Guidance: Helping learners organize their thoughts, perhaps through “argument structuring tools” or specific prompts that help them distinguish between conflicting ideas.
  • Debriefing: This is perhaps our most powerful scaffold. Using the HUMBLE approach (Humility, Understanding, Mindfulness, Balance, Learning, Engagement), we can guide learners to reflect on their performance. Reflection allows students to compare their internal ideas with the evidence generated during the simulation, leading to a more coherent understanding.

5. Leverage Multiple Perspectives

Deep understanding rarely emerges from a single point of view. It develops when learners are exposed to, and must reconcile, multiple perspectives. Well-designed simulation environments are uniquely positioned to support this kind of learning.

In healthcare simulation, perspective-taking happens at several levels. Within a single discipline, learners are often exposed to differing clinical interpretations, prioritization strategies, or communication styles. Two clinicians may look at the same evolving scenario and arrive at different conclusions about what matters most in that moment. Simulation creates a safe space for these differences to surface, be examined, and be discussed, without the risk of patient harm and through the operative lens of a safe learning environment. This kind of cognitive diversity encourages learners to move beyond “the right answer” and toward deeper clinical reasoning and judgment.

Interprofessional simulation amplifies this effect even further. When nurses, physicians, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and other professionals train together, learners gain direct insight into how roles, responsibilities, and mental models differ across the care team. What one profession sees as a priority may not align with another’s perspective, and simulation makes those differences visible. Rather than flattening these viewpoints, effective SCLEs use them as learning assets.

From a student-centered perspective, the power of simulation lies in shifting knowledge construction from the individual to the group. Learners are not simply absorbing expert explanations; they are actively negotiating meaning with peers who bring different training backgrounds, experiences, and assumptions to the scenario. Over time, this shared sensemaking helps build a true learning community, one in which understanding is co-constructed and collective competence exceeds what any single learner could achieve alone.

Importantly, structured debriefing plays a critical role in solidifying this learning. When facilitators intentionally invite multiple voices into the conversation, asking “What were you seeing?” or “How did your role shape that decision?”, learners begin to appreciate not only what decisions were made, but why they differed. This reflective dialogue reinforces perspective-taking as a core professional skill, not an optional add-on.

In this way, simulation-based SCLEs mirror the realities of clinical practice itself: complex, collaborative, and shaped by multiple viewpoints. By embracing, not minimizing, these differences, simulation helps learners develop the adaptability, empathy, and team-based reasoning required for real-world patient care.

Conclusion

Transforming a simulation program into a student-centered learning environment (SCLE) requires more than just high-tech equipment. It requires a shift in mindset from the outset of the design. We must view the simulation ecosystem through the lens of the learner. By balancing authentic practice with cognitive load management, respecting prior experience, and providing robust scaffolding, we empower our learners to become autonomous, lifelong problem solvers.

Until next time, Happy Simulating!

  • (1) King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
  • (2) Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2012). Student-centered learning environments (pp. 3–25). In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, scenario design, simulation

Tagged as , , , ,

October 23, 2025 · 8:03 am

What’s a Scenario? The Word That Means Many Things, To Many People in Healthcare Simulation

Definition of 'scenario' showing its etymology and meaning related to scripts and instructions.

If you’ve worked in healthcare simulation for any length of time, you’ve probably used the word “scenario” countless times. “Let’s build a new scenario.” “We’re running the sepsis scenario this afternoon.” “That scenario went great!”

But have you ever stopped to think about how differently that same word means to each person involved? The word “scenario” is a perfect example of how language in simulation can unite us, or possibly confuse us,  depending on our perspective. Additionally those creating said “scenarios” need to be keenly aware of these implications.

In truth, “scenario” represents something unique to different members of the simulation ecosystem: learners, educators, technicians, and administrators. Understanding these different lenses can help strengthen teamwork, communication, and the overall impact of our simulation programs.

The Learner’s Scenario: The Clinical Experience

For learners, the scenario is the experience itself. It’s the unfolding clinical-like moment that challenges their knowledge, judgment, and communication skills in an effort to improve.

In the learner’s mind, the scenario “is” the simulation. It’s what they see, hear, and feel—the patient’s distress, the team dynamics, the need to make decisions under pressure. The learner rarely thinks about the planning that went into it; they simply step into a space that hopefully they were well oriented, feels real enough and is relevant to their goals.


For them, the scenario represents an opportunity: a chance to act, reflect, and learn in a safe environment. When done well, it becomes a memorable and emotionally resonant learning event that bridges the gap between classroom knowledge and clinical performance along with providing a stimulus for self-improvement.

The Educator’s Scenario: The Blueprint for Learning

For the educator or faculty member, the scenario is not just an experience—it’s a design.

To the educator, the scenario is the blueprint for what the learner will encounter. It contains the story arc, learning objectives, key events, and expected actions. It guides how pre-learning will be incorporated or reinforced to prepare the learner, how the simulation unfolds, and how the debriefing reinforces the lessons afterward as well as how assessment strategies and tools are incorporated into the learning encounter.

A well-constructed scenario is both an art and a science. It is an instrument that balances operations with realism and  educational intent. It requires alignment between objectives, assessment, and debriefing. The educator’s scenario document might include everything from patient history and vital sign trends to faculty prompts, checklists, and suggested debriefing strategies and topics.

In this view, the scenario becomes a curricular instrument, a tool that translates educational goals into lived experience.

The Simulation Operations Team’s Scenario: The Technical Playbook

For the simulation operations specialist or technician, the scenario is a technical plan, a script for how to bring the educator’s vision to life.

This version of the scenario includes the logistics that make the experience possible, for example:
– Scheduling and room reservations
– Equipment and supply lists
– Simulator programming and physiological responses
– Audio-visual configurations
– Staffing assignments and role descriptions

For the operations team, precision is everything. A single oversight—an unplugged cable, a missing monitor, or a mistimed vital sign change, can derail the encounter and disrupt the learning flow along with the concentration of the learners and faculty alike.

Their scenario isn’t about learning objectives; it’s about execution. It ensures that the right tools, people, environments, and technology align perfectly at the right moment to make the educational magic happen. In many ways, their scenario is the stage directions that make the play run seamlessly. Or to borrow a piece from a previous blog post of mine, it is the music that plays to allow the learners to dance and be evaluated.

The Administrator’s Scenario: The Unit of Measurement

To program administrators and simulation center leaders, the word “scenario” carries yet another meaning.

From this vantage point, the scenario represents a unit of activity. Think of it as a quantifiable event tied to scheduling, staffing, and financial data. It’s a building block for understanding center utilization, cost recovery, and return on investment.

An administrator may see a scenario not only as an educational event but also as a data record in a management system: duration, participants, faculty hours, resource use, and consumables. From these data points come critical insights such as how much it costs to deliver a course, how often equipment is used, and where efficiencies or resource gaps exist.

This administrative view ensures that simulation programs remain sustainable, scalable, and aligned with institutional goals.

One Word, Many Worlds

The fascinating thing about the word “scenario” is that all these definitions are correct, utilized every day in the simulation world and essential. Each reflects a different dimension of the same phenomenon.

For the learner, it’s an experience.
For the educator, it’s a design.
For the technician, it’s an operation.
For the administrator, it’s a metric.

Together, these perspectives form the ecosystem that allows simulation to thrive. The most successful programs are those where these views overlap and inform one another—where educators appreciate the operational complexity, technicians understand the learning goals, and administrators recognize the educational and patient-safety impact that justify the resources.

When those perspectives align, the word “scenario” transforms from a simple script or event into a powerful tool for advancing healthcare education and safety.

Director’s Reflection

In my years of working with simulation programs around the world, I’ve learned that the strength of a simulation scenario isn’t found in just the documents or the technology’s, but it also in the shared understanding among the people who create, deliver, and learn from it.

A scenario is a bridge connecting intent to experience, vision to execution, and learning to improvement. Whether you’re writing one, running one, or analyzing its data, remember that every scenario represents a small but meaningful step toward better healthcare.

Until Next Time,

Happy Simulating!

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, debriefing, design, operations, scenario design, simulation

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 23, 2025 · 8:00 am

Debugging Simulation: How Alpha and Beta Testing Strengthen Scenario Success

In the world of healthcare simulation, our goal is to create meaningful learning experiences that improve the safety and quality of patient care. Achieving that goal requires careful planning, thoughtful design, and rigorous evaluation of our simulation scenarios. One concept borrowed from the world of software and technology development—but often overlooked in healthcare education—is the process of alpha and beta testing.

By understanding and applying these concepts to simulation scenario design, educators can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness, and overall impact of their programs. Let’s take a closer look at what alpha and beta testing mean, why they matter in healthcare simulation, and how they can help elevate both the learner as well as the facilitators experience.

What Do We Mean by Alpha and Beta Testing?

The terms alpha testing and beta testing originate from the software development industry. Before an application is released to users, developers put it through multiple rounds of trials to identify problems, fine-tune functionality, and ensure that it behaves as intended. Healthcare simulation, while a very different domain, benefits from the same structured approach.

  • Alpha testing is the internal trial run. In the simulation context, this means running a new scenario with the development team or a small group of faculty before exposing it to actual learners. The purpose is to check for errors, gaps, or inconsistencies in the scenario design. Are the case details clear? Do the vital signs respond correctly to learner interventions? Does the simulator technology function as intended?
  • Beta testing is the external pilot run. This step introduces the scenario to a limited group of learners—often peers, or learners similar to those whom the scenario is intended. The purpose is to observe how real participants interact with the scenario. Do they engage in the way you intended? Do the prompts drive the critical thinking skills you were hoping to elicit? Are they interpreting the simulated aspects of the scenario in the manner which they are intended? Are the debriefing points aligning with your learning objectives?

When done well, these stages help identify potential pitfalls, correct technical issues, and refine educational flow before the simulation reaches a larger audience.

Why Alpha Testing Matters

Alpha testing is your chance to work out the “kinks” of a simulation in a controlled environment. Think of it as a rehearsal where mistakes are not only acceptable but expected.

Consider a scenario where learners are expected to diagnose sepsis in an unstable patient. During alpha testing, your faculty team might discover that the simulator’s vital signs do not update quickly enough when fluid resuscitation is administered. Or perhaps the timing of lab results makes it impossible for learners to reach the intended diagnosis within the allotted session. Identifying these issues before learners arrive saves both time and frustration. However, always remember that those who participated in the design often have developed a shared mental model and may miss the fact that some things are misinterpreted by actual intended learners.

Some examples of key questions to ask during alpha testing include:

  • Do the scenario instructions match the programmed mannequin responses?
  • Are embedded participants (e.g., a nurse or family member role) clear on their scripts?
  • Does the timing of critical events support the learning objectives?
  • Are there any “gotchas” that could derail learner engagement?
  • Did the pre-briefing take longer than expected?

By the end of alpha testing, the simulation team should have a scenario that is technically functional, logically sound, and aligned with its stated goals that runs in the approximate amount of time that it was designed.

Why Beta Testing is Crucial

Once the internal checks are complete, it is time to see how the scenario performs in the real world. Beta testing is the first opportunity to expose the simulation to actual learners, albeit on a smaller and more controlled scale.

Imagine your team has developed a scenario for emergency airway management. The alpha test confirmed that the mannequin responds appropriately to intubation attempts and that medications are available in the correct doses. During beta testing with a group of residents, however, you observe that they consistently miss an early cue about airway edema. This could mean your prompts are too subtle—or that your learners need more scaffolding. Either way, the feedback allows you to adjust before rolling it out widely.

Beta testing provides answers to questions such as:

  • Are learners engaging with the scenario in the way we anticipated?
  • Do the actions of participants align with the intended outcomes? competencies?
  • Does the scenario create opportunities for meaningful debriefing?
  • What unexpected challenges or learner behaviors emerge?

In essence, beta testing allows the scenario to “fail safely” in front of a pilot group so that the eventual cohort benefits from a polished and purposeful experience.

Lessons from Software Development

In software engineering, skipping alpha and beta testing is a recipe for disaster—think buggy apps, frustrated users, and poor reviews. The same risks apply to simulation. Without proper testing, scenarios can fall flat, confuse learners, or even undermine the credibility of your program.

Borrowing these terms reminds us that scenario design is not a one-and-done activity. It is an iterative process where feedback loops play a central role in quality improvement. Just as developers patch software bugs, simulation educators refine scenario elements until they function smoothly.

Practical Tips for Implementing Alpha and Beta Testing

  1. Schedule testing time. Don’t assume you can “test on the fly” before learners walk in. Build alpha and beta testing into your development timeline.
  2. Use checklists. Structured tools can help your team evaluate everything from simulator programming to alignment with learning objectives.
  3. Capture feedback systematically. During beta testing, request that observers take notes on learner behaviors, timing, and unintended outcomes. Post-scenario surveys can also capture learner perceptions.
  4. Iterate, don’t improvise. Resist the urge to “fix” problems on the fly during a live teaching session. Incorporate changes based on alpha/beta feedback before the full rollout.

How This Benefits Learners

Ultimately, alpha and beta testing serve a dual role about making faculty feel more comfortable as well as enhancing the learner experience. A well-tested scenario ensures that:

  • Learners are immersed in a coherent case that is relevant to their learning needs.
  • Technical glitches do not distract from critical thinking.
  • Debriefing discussions flow naturally from the scenario, rather than being forced or disconnected.

In other words, when educators invest in testing, learners reap the rewards through higher-quality education and, by extension, safer patient care.

Conclusion: Test Early, Test Often

Healthcare simulation has matured into a vital component of modern education. But as with any educational tool, its effectiveness depends on the rigor of its design. By embracing alpha and beta testing, simulation teams can identify weaknesses, refine strengths, and deliver scenarios that consistently meet their objectives.

The lesson from software holds true: the more you test before release, the fewer problems you encounter afterward. In healthcare simulation, that means fewer distractions, more meaningful learning, and ultimately better outcomes for patients.

So the next time you’re preparing to debut a new scenario, pause and ask: Have we really tested this? If the answer is no, it may be worth an extra round of alpha or beta testing. Your learners, as well as your participating faculty, and technical staff will thank you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, scenario design, simulation, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

April 8, 2025 · 9:51 am

Essential Steps for Effective Needs Assessment in Education

The Art and Science of the Needs Assessment in Simulation-Based Education

Introduction

In the realm of simulation-based learning, understanding the specific needs of your learners is paramount to crafting a curriculum that truly resonates and delivers impactful results. Conducting an effective needs assessment serves as the foundation for designing a successful educational program, enabling educators to identify gaps, align objectives, and tailor experiences that foster engagement and skill acquisition. This guide will walk you through the essential steps of executing a thorough needs assessment, empowering you to gather valuable insights and data that will help shape your simulation-based education curriculum. From stakeholder interviews to learner surveys, we will explore strategies to ensure that your curriculum not only meets the diverse needs of your students but also equips them with the confidence and competence to tackle real-world challenges. Here, I explore the art and science of needs assessment, discovering how to design an educational experience that inspires and equips future professionals for success.

1. The Importance of the Needs Assessment in Simulation-Based Education

Understanding the importance of needs assessment in education is the cornerstone of developing a simulation-based curriculum that truly meets the needs of learners and the demands of contemporary educational environments. A needs assessment is a process that identifies gaps between current educational outcomes and desired goals. By conducting a thorough needs assessment, educators can uncover specific areas where knowledge, skills, or competencies are lacking among students or professionals, ensuring that the curriculum is directly aligned with these identified needs.

The importance of needs assessment cannot be overstated; it empowers educators to make informed decisions based on data rather than assumptions. This evidence-based approach encourages the implementation of targeted strategies that enhance learning experiences and outcomes. Additionally, it fosters a curriculum design that focuses on what learners need to thrive in their respective fields.

In the context of simulation-based education, the stakes are high. By utilizing a needs assessment, educators can ensure that simulations are not only relevant but also realistic and applicable to real-world scenarios. This is especially important in simulation-based education, where resources are often limited and perceived as costly, making it critical to ensure that simulation is used judiciously and effectively to maximize educational value and impact.

2. Identifying Stakeholders and Gathering Data

Identifying stakeholders and gathering input are critical steps in conducting a needs assessment for a simulation-based education curriculum. Stakeholders encompass a broad range of individuals and groups, each bringing unique perspectives and insights that can significantly influence the design and implementation of your program. Begin by considering key stakeholders, including educators, students, healthcare professionals, employers, and administrators. Engaging these stakeholders early in the process ensures that you capture a comprehensive view of the needs and expectations that should guide your curriculum development.

To gather input, consider employing a variety of methods to ensure diverse voices are heard. Surveys can provide quantitative data, while focus groups and interviews allow for deeper qualitative insights. Organize workshops where stakeholders can collaboratively discuss their experiences and expectations, fostering a sense of ownership in the process.

As you compile feedback, look for common themes and concerns among your stakeholders. This will not only help you prioritize content and objectives but also highlight specific challenges that your simulation-based curriculum can address. By actively involving stakeholders in the needs assessment process, you set the foundation for a robust curriculum that meets the real-world demands of learners and the professions they aspire to enter, ultimately leading to more effective educational outcomes.

Another essential component of the needs assessment process involves searching for and analyzing existing data, such as performance on national or board examinations, as well as local assessments like past tests or quizzes, to identify trends, pinpoint gaps, and guide the development of targeted educational interventions. Additionally, review existing literature and curriculum standards relevant to your field to identify the best practices and gaps in current offerings.

3. Designing Effective Surveys and Interviews

Designing effective surveys and interviews is crucial for obtaining meaningful and actionable data during the needs assessment process. Surveys allow you to gather quantitative data from a large number of respondents quickly and efficiently. Focus on crafting straightforward, concise questions that address the key areas of interest identified during your stakeholder analysis. Utilize a mix of question types, such as multiple-choice, Likert scales, and open-ended questions, to capture a comprehensive view of the respondents’ perspectives.

Interviews, on the other hand, provide an opportunity to delve deeper into qualitative insights. Conduct one-on-one or group interviews with a representative sample of stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences, expectations, and challenges. Prepare a flexible interview guide with open-ended questions that encourage discussion and reflection. Be attentive to the responses and probe further to uncover underlying issues or insights that might not emerge from surveys alone.

Combining the data collected from surveys and interviews will give you a robust understanding of the needs and expectations of your learners. Analyze the data to identify common themes, patterns, and gaps that could provide benefits as a result of your simulation-based curriculum. This approach ensures that the curriculum incorporates diverse perspectives and is designed to meet the practical needs of the educational environment.

4. Analyzing and Interpreting Data

Once data is collected, the next step is to analyze and interpret the findings. Data analysis involves organizing the information in a way that makes it easier to identify trends and insights. For quantitative data, use statistical methods to summarize the responses and highlight significant results. Graphs and charts can be useful tools to visualize the data and make it more accessible.

Qualitative data, gathered from interviews and open-ended survey responses, requires a different approach. Employ techniques such as coding to categorize the responses and identify recurring themes. Look for patterns and connections between various stakeholder groups to understand their collective needs and perspectives.

Interpreting the data involves deriving meaningful conclusions and actionable recommendations. Consider how the identified needs align with your educational goals and objectives. Prioritize the most critical gaps and challenges and consider how your simulation-based curriculum can effectively address them. Utilize the insights gained from the data to inform the development of targeted strategies and interventions that enhance learning outcomes.

5. Implementing Findings into Curriculum Design

With an understanding of the needs and expectations gathered from your assessment, the final step is to incorporate these findings into the curriculum design. Start by outlining the key objectives and learning outcomes based on the identified needs. Revisit assessing whether the objectives and learning outcomes would be best served through the implementation of simulation.

Design simulation activities that reflect real-world scenarios and challenges, fostering critical thinking and practical skills. Focus on areas that were recognized as unmet needs during your needs analysis.  Integrate feedback mechanisms to evaluate the curriculum’s effectiveness and adjust as needed. This will help foster a continuous quality improvement mindset within your program.

Summary

By conducting a well-structured needs analysis and implementing the findings into the curriculum design, you create a responsive and relevant educational framework that prepares both learners and your program for success. This evidence-based approach ensures that your simulation-based education curriculum is not only practical but also addresses the exact needs of your organization, providing the most effective and efficient deployment of scarce and/or expensive resources.

Until next time, Happy Simulating!

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, return on investment, simulation

Tagged as ,

November 21, 2024 · 8:39 am

Improving Interrater Reliability in Healthcare Simulation-Based Assessments: The RST Approach

Achieving high interrater reliability (IRR) is a cornerstone of any effective medium or high stakes assessment in healthcare simulation. Without consistent and dependable scoring across multiple raters, the validity of an assessment can be called into question. Interrater reliability ensures that evaluations are fair, objective, and truly reflective of the participant’s performance rather than the subjective biases or variability among raters.

For simulation-based assessments, however, maintaining IRR can be particularly challenging due to the complex, dynamic, and multifaceted nature of healthcare scenarios. This is where the RST approach—focusing on changes to the Rater, the Simulation, and the Tool—can offer a systematic and impactful framework for improvement. In this post I’ll walk you through this approach, providing insights and practical strategies for applying RST to your simulation programs.

The R in RST: Changing the Rater

One of the most straightforward avenues to improve IRR is addressing variability related to the rater. This is critical because raters bring their own perspectives, experiences, and biases to the evaluation process, all of which can affect their scoring.

Strategies for Enhancing the Rater’s Consistency:

  1. Rater Calibration Sessions
    Conducting rater calibration sessions is one of the most effective ways to ensure raters have a shared understanding of the evaluation criteria. These sessions involve reviewing sample performances as a group and discussing scoring rationales to align perceptions. This shared experience helps raters interpret assessment tools in the same way, leading to more consistent scoring.
  2. Rater Selection and Expertise
    Consider who is performing the assessment. Are they subject matter experts? Are they trained educators? Selecting raters with relevant expertise and familiarity with the assessment content can reduce variability. Alternatively, inexperienced or overly diverse rater pools may introduce inconsistencies.
  3. Addressing Rater Bias
    Even with calibration, unconscious biases can creep into assessments. Training raters to recognize and mitigate biases—such as favoring individuals who perform similarly to the rater’s own practice style—can improve consistency.
  4. Changing Raters
    If specific raters consistently show discrepancies in their scoring compared to others, it may be necessary to replace them or limit their participation in high-stakes assessments. Using multiple raters per simulation and averaging scores can also dilute individual biases.

The S in RST: Changing the Simulation

The second dimension of the RST approach involves modifying the simulation itself to make it more assessable. By carefully designing simulations to make critical behaviors, thought processes, and decisions more observable, you enhance the ability of raters to evaluate participants consistently.

Strategies for Simulation Adjustments:

  1. Prompting Observable Actions
    Simulations can be structured to encourage participants to verbalize their thought processes or articulate their decisions. For instance, during a scenario involving a critical diagnosis, asking participants to “think aloud” as they interpret clinical findings can provide raters with clear evidence of decision-making skills, making scoring more straightforward.
  2. Embedding Structured Checkpoints
    Building structured checkpoints into the simulation—such as specific moments when participants are asked to summarize their findings or outline their next steps—creates clear opportunities for assessment. This reduces ambiguity for raters.
  3. Standardizing Simulation Flow
    Variability in how simulations unfold can lead to scoring challenges. Using standardized patient scripts, consistent cues, and fixed timing for critical events ensures that all participants encounter the same conditions, making assessments more comparable. If high technology simulators are being used for the simulation, consider the use of preprogram scenario to ensure the physiology changes are consistent across all episodes of the same scenario.
  4. Revisiting Scenario Complexity
    While realism is a hallmark of effective simulation, excessive complexity can overwhelm raters and obscure key performance indicators. Simplifying scenarios to focus on specific competencies can improve the clarity and reliability of evaluations.

The T in RST: Changing the Tool

The assessment tool is often an overlooked factor in achieving IRR, yet it plays a pivotal role in how raters interpret and apply scoring criteria. A well-designed tool minimizes ambiguity and makes scoring intuitive, even for less experienced raters.

Strategies for Tool Optimization:

  1. Behavioral Anchors for Rating Scales
    Adding specific behavioral examples or descriptors to rating scale items helps raters apply the scales consistently. For instance, instead of a vague “Good” rating, an anchored descriptor like “Effectively communicates diagnosis and treatment plan to patient” provides clarity.
  2. Item Grouping and Ordering
    Organizing items logically—for example, grouping communication skills, clinical decision-making, and procedural skills separately—makes it easier for raters to focus on one domain at a time. A cluttered or disorganized tool can lead to confusion and inconsistent scoring.
  3. Simplifying Language
    Ensure that the language in the tool is straightforward and free of jargon. If raters struggle to interpret an item, their scoring may vary widely.
  4. Usability Enhancements
    Small changes, like improving the font size, using bullet points, or incorporating intuitive layouts, can significantly reduce rater fatigue and errors during scoring. A user-friendly tool ensures raters stay focused on the participant’s performance rather than grappling with the mechanics of the tool.
  5. Pretesting the Tool
    Conduct pilot assessments using the tool to identify problematic items or inconsistencies. This feedback loop allows you to refine the tool before deploying it in high-stakes simulations.

Putting It All Together: The RST Approach in Action

To illustrate how the RST approach works holistically, imagine a healthcare simulation designed to assess a participant’s ability to manage a cardiac arrest scenario:

  • Rater: You organize a calibration session where all raters review a sample video of a cardiac arrest scenario and agree on scoring criteria. You also ensure raters have experience in emergency medicine and provide bias-awareness training.
  • Simulation: The scenario is adjusted to include a structured moment where the participant is required to verbalize their reasoning for choosing a particular medication. Additionally, standardized cues are used to ensure all participants face identical conditions.
  • Tool: The assessment tool is revised to include behavioral anchors, such as “Identifies and administers epinephrine within 3 minutes” for procedural accuracy. The tool’s layout is simplified, grouping items under headings like “Clinical Judgment” and “Communication.”

With these changes, the IRR for this simulation-based assessment improves, as raters now have a shared understanding, participants’ actions are more easily observable, and the tool provides clearer guidance.

Conclusion: Adopting the RST Approach for Better Assessments

While I will agree, improving interrater reliability in healthcare simulation assessments is no small task, but the RST approach offers a structured framework to tackle the challenge. By focusing on the Rater, the Simulation, and the Tool, you can systematically address the factors that contribute to variability and ensure more consistent, fair, and accurate evaluations. For more on this see my previous blog post on interrater reliability.

Whether you are designing a new assessment or refining an existing one, considering how changes in these three areas might influence IRR is a worthwhile investment. With reliable assessments, we not only enhance the quality of simulation-based education but also uphold the integrity of our evaluations—ultimately contributing to better-prepared healthcare professionals.

Are you ready to elevate your simulation assessments? The RST approach is here to guide your journey.

Please like and comment if you would like to see more topics like this in my blog!

Until next time, Happy Simulating!

Leave a comment

Filed under assessment, design, scenario design, simulation

Tagged as , ,

July 27, 2023 · 11:52 am

The Importance of the Psychological Contract in Healthcare Simulation: Six Fundamental Elements

Simulation is a powerful tool in healthcare education to enhance learning and improve patient outcomes. Through simulation-based learning encounters, participants can engage in hands-on experiences that mimic real-life situations, allowing them to develop critical skills and knowledge.

The success of healthcare simulation educational encounters relies on the participants and the facilitators who guide and support the learning process. Understanding the psychological contract that needs to exist between participants, facilitators, and content designers, is crucial in creating a positive and effective learning environment. In this blog post, we will explore the importance of this psychological contract and discuss strategies to enhance it, ultimately leading to enhanced learning and improved outcomes in healthcare simulation.

While most discussions of the psychological contract are in the context of facilitating a simulation in real time, some elements are critically important to consider during the design process associated with simulation-based education encounters. How we structure our briefings, pre-briefings, and course schedules can dramatically influence our relationship with the participants to enhance the learning potential in the simulated environment.  

I like to think of six essential elements when designing and facilitating simulations.

Professionalism: We agree to treat each other as professionals throughout simulation-based education encounters. The learner agrees to attempt to interact in the scenario as if they were taking care of an actual patient, and the simulation facilitator agrees that the scenario will be directed to respond with a reasonable facsimile of how an actual patient will respond to the care being delivered.

Confidentiality: The simulation program agrees to keep the performance assessment of participants confidential to the extent possible. The simulation participant should be apprised of the fate of any audio, video, or still photographic media generated from the simulation. If, by programmatic design, there is the intent to share any performance results, the participant should be aware of this before engagement in the program.

Time: The simulation facilitator commits to creating an environment of learning that respects the participant’s time. The simulation program commits to the intent that the simulation encounter and all associated time spent will help provide the participant with relevant, professional education and growth potential.

Realism/Deception: Both the participant and the facilitator acknowledge that the environment is not real and will contain varying degrees of realism. The simulation environment’s primary intent is to provide a reasonable facsimile of a healthcare encounter to serve as the background for the participant to demonstrate their clinical practice proficiency to the best of their knowledge in exchange for feedback that highlights areas of success and identifies areas of potential improvement. Our simulation-based scenario designs are modeled after actual patient encounters or close representations of cases that may occur within your practice domain. While the case may represent areas of diagnostic mystery or other unknowns, the scenarios are not designed to deceive or mislead the learner deliberately. The facilitator acknowledges there may be facsimiles of the simulation that may be misinterpreted by the learner as a matter of simulation scenario design limitations and will address them as appropriate, as they occur.

Judgment: While there will be an assessment of the learner’s performance to carry out effective feedback, it will be based upon known best practices, guidelines, algorithms, protocols, and professional judgment. No judgment will be associated with why a gap in knowledge or performance was identified. The facilitators agree to maintain a safe learning environment that invites questions, explorations, and clarifications as needed to enhance learning potential.

Humbleness: Healthcare is a complicated profession regardless of the practice domain. It requires the engagement of lifelong learners to learn and retain a significant amount of knowledge and skill. Additionally, there is a constant refinement of knowledge, best practices, and procedures. The facilitator acknowledges that they are imperfect and engage in the same lifelong learning journey as the participant.

While the descriptions associated with each element of the psychological contract in this post are more aligned with the engagement with senior learners or practicing professionals, it is easy to translate each category when working with students and other types of junior learners.

Educators and learners can establish a foundation of trust, collaboration, and active participation by understanding and embracing the tenants of psychological contracts in healthcare simulation. Careful consideration of these elements is beneficial during program design and when actively facilitating simulation-based learning encounters. This, in turn, enhances the learning outcomes, improves clinical practice, and prepares healthcare professionals to deliver high-quality care as they engage in real-world patient encounters and associated situations.

The next time you are designing or conducting simulation based education endeavors give careful consideration to the psychological contract!

Until next time, Happy Simulating!

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, simulation

Tagged as , ,

August 30, 2022 · 10:40 am

Sherlock Holmes and the Students of Simulation

I want to make a comparison between Sherlock Holmes and the students of our simulations! It has important implications for our scenario design process. When you think about it, there’s hypervigilance amongst our students, looking for clues during the simulation. They are doing so to figure out what we want them to do. Analyzing such clues is like the venerable detective Sherlock Holmes’s processes when investigating a crime.

Video version of this post

This has important implications for our scenario design work because many times, we get confused with the idea that our job is to create reality when in fact, it is not that at all our job. As simulation experts, our jobs are to create an environment with the reality that is sufficient to allow a student to progress through various aspects of the provision of health care. We need to be able to make a judgment and say, “hey, they need some work in this area,” and “hey, they’re doing good in this area.”

To accomplish this, we create facsimiles of what they will experience in the actual clinical environment transported into the simulated environment to help them adjust their mindset so they can progress down the pathway of taking care of those (simulated) patient encounters.

We must be mindful that during the simulated environment, people engage their best Sherlock Holmes, and as the famous song goes, [they are] “looking for clues at the scene of the crime.”
Let’s explore this more practically.

Suppose I am working in the emergency department, and I walk into the room and see a knife sitting on the tray table next to a patient. In that case, I immediately think, “wow, somebody didn’t clean this room up after the last patient, and there’s a knife on the tray. I would probably apologize about it to the patient and their family.”

Fast forward…..

Put me into a simulation as a participant, and I walk into the room. I see the knife on the tray next to the patient’s bed, and I immediately think, “Ah, I’m probably going to do a crich or some invasive procedure on this patient.”

How does that translate to our scenario design work? We must be mindful that the students of our simulations are always hypervigilant and always looking for these clues. Sometimes when we have things included in the simulation, we might just have there as window dressing or to try to (re)create some reality. However, stop to think they can be misinterpreted as necessary to be incorporated into the simulation by the student for success in their analysis.

Suddenly, the student sees this thing sitting on the table, so they think it is essential for them to use it in the simulation, and now they are using it, and the simulation is going off the tracks! As the instructor, you’re saying that what happened is not what was supposed to happen!

At times we must be able to objectively go back and look at the scenario design process and recognize maybe just maybe something we did in the design of the scenario, which includes the setup of the environment, that misled the participant(s). If we see multiple students making the same mistakes, we must go back and analyze our scenario design. I like to call it noise when we put extra things into the simulation scenario design. It’s noise, and the potential for that noise to blow up and drive the simulation off the tracks goes up exponentially with every component we include in the space. Be mindful of this and be aware of the hypervigilance associated with students undergoing simulation.

We can negate some of these things by a good orientation, by incorporating the good practice into our simulation scenario design so that we’re only including items in the room that are germane to accomplishing the learning objectives.

Tip: If you see the same mistakes happening again and again, please introspect, go back, look at the design of your simulation scenario, and recognize there could be a flaw! Who finds such flaws in the story?  Sherlock Holmes, that’s who!

1 Comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, scenario design, simulation

Tagged as , ,

June 6, 2022 · 12:05 pm

5 Tips to Improve Interrater Reliability During Healthcare Simulation Assessments

One of the most important concepts in simulation-based assessment is achieving reliability, and specifically interrater reliability. While I have discussed previously in this blog every simulation is assessment, in this article I am speaking of the type of simulation assessment that requires one or more raters to record data associated with the performance or more specifically an assessment tool.

Interpreter reliability simply put is that if we have multiple raters watching a simulation and using a scoring rubric or tool, that they will produce similar scores. Achieving intermittent reliability is important for several reasons including that we are usually using more than one rater to evaluate simulations over time. Other times we are engaged in research and other high stakes reasons to complete assessment tools and want to be certain that we are reaching correct conclusions.

Improving assessment capabilities for stimulation requires a significant amount of effort. The amount of time and effort that can go into the assessment process should be directly proportional to the stakes of the assessment.

In this article I offer five tips to consider for improving into rate of reliability when conducting simulation-based assessment

1 – Train Your Raters

The most basic and overlooked aspect of achieving into rate and reliability comes from training of the raters. The raters need to be trained to the process, the assessment tools, and each item of the assessment that they are rendering an opinion on. It is tempting to think of subject matter experts as knowledgeable enough to fill out simple assessments however you will find out with detailed testing that often the scoring of the item is truly in the eye of the beholder. Simple items like “asked medical history” may be difficult to achieve reliability if not defined prior to the assessment activity. Other things may affect the assessment that require rater calibration/training such as limitations of the simulation, and how something is being simulated and/or overall familiarity with the technology that may be used to collect the data.

2 – Modify Your Assessment Tool

Modifications to the assessment tool can enhance interrelated reliability. Sometimes it can be extreme as having to remove an assessment item because you figure out that you are unable to achieve reliability despite iterative attempts at improvement. Other less drastic changes can come in the form of clarifying the text directives that are associated with the item. Sometimes removing qualitative wording such as “appropriately” or “correctly” can help to improve reliability. Adding descriptors of expected behavior or behaviorally anchored statements to items can help to improve reliability. However, these modifications and qualifying statements should also be addressed in the training of the raters as described above.

3 – Make Things Assessable (Scenario Design)

An often-overlooked factor that can help to improve indurated reliability is make modifications to the simulation scenario to allow things to be more “assessable”. We make a sizable number of decisions when creating simulation-based scenarios for education purposes. There are other decisions and functions that can be designed into the scenario to allow assessments to be more accurate and reliable. For example, if we want to know if someone correctly interpreted wheezing in the lung sounds of the simulator, we introduced design elements in the scenario that could help us to gather this information accurately and thus increase into rater reliability. For example, we could embed a person in the scenario to play the role of another healthcare provider that simply asks the participant what they heard. Alternatively, we could have the participant fill out a questionnaire at the end of the scenario, or even complete an assessment form regarding the simulation encounter. Lastly, we could embed the assessment tool into the debriefing process and simply ask the participant during the debriefing what they heard when I auscultated the lungs. There is no correct way to do this, I am trying to articulate different solutions to the same problem that could represent solutions based on the context of your scenario design.

4 – Assessment Tool Technology

Gathering assessment data electronically can help significantly. When compared to a paper and pencil collection scheme technology enhanced or “smart” scoring systems can assist. For example, if there are many items on a paper scoring tool the page can sometimes become unwieldy to monitor. Electronic systems can continuously update and filter out data that does not need to be displayed at a given point in time during the unfolding of the simulation assessment. Simply having previously evaluated items disappear off the screen can reduce the clutter associated with scoring tools.

5 – Consider Video Scoring

For high stakes assessment and research purposes it is often wise to consider video scoring. High stakes meaning pass/fail criteria associated with advancement in a program, heavy weighting of a grade, licensure, or practice decisions. The ability to add multiple camera angles as well as the functionality to rewind and play back things that occurred during the simulation are valuable in improving the scoring accuracy of the collected data which will subsequently improve the interrater reliability. Video scoring associated with assessments requires considerable time and effort and thus reserved for the times when it is necessary.

I hope that you found these tips useful. Assessment during simulations can be an important part of improving the quality and safety of patient care!

If you found this post useful please consider subscribing to this blog!

Thanks and until next time! Happy Simulating.

1 Comment

Filed under assessment, Curriculum, design, scenario design

Tagged as , , ,

July 7, 2020 · 2:57 pm

Cognitive Load Control and Scenario Design in Healthcare Simulation

As the design architects of simulation scenarios, we must remain cognizant of our ability to have influence over the cognitive load of those experiencing our simulations in the role of learners.

When caring for patients in real life, we expend cognitive energy in doing so to ensure we make the right decisions to provide the absolute best care for every patient. We engage in critical thought processes, that guide our interpretation of the enormous number of facts surrounding each patient so we can make further decisions to provide various therapies, or advice to the patient.

Headache brain in a clamp isolated grey background

When we design simulations for our learners, we are creating similar environments noted above that demand a significant amount of cognitive workload to be endured for the participant to successfully navigate the case and care the [simulated] patient. In addition, I argue that we are adding additional cognitive workload by subjecting someone to the simulated environment insofar as they are engaged in a conscious or perhaps subconscious pursuit of deciding what is simulated and what is not. I have previously written about this and dubbed it the cognitive third space of simulation.

Nonetheless, there is mental energy spent in the care of the patient as well as the interpretation of the simulation. We also must realize that our design choices inside of the scenario contribute to the adjustment of the cognitive load endured by the learner(s) associated with our simulations. It is important that we be deliberate in our design to ensure that we are allowing all involved to achieve the desired learning outcomes.

Some specific examples of this cognitive load influence may help to bring forth an understanding. Take a test result for example. If one looks in the electronic health record and sees the values reported for a simple test, like a basic metabolic profile (which consists of a sodium, chloride, potassium, CO2, BUN, creatinine and glucose) there is a certain amount of mental energy goes into the interpretation of the numeric data presented for each of the seven items of the basic metabolic profile. Some electronic health records may color-code the results to assist in the processing of normal versus normal, and some may not.

Such a decision involved in the human factors design of electronic health record actually influences the amount of cognitive spend on the interpretation of the given value. Further, as experienced clinicians are keenly aware, we must interpret the lab value in the context of the patient for whom the test has been ordered. What is normal for one patient, may not be normal for another. Thus, even in the interpretation of a simple test, there is a significant amount of cognitive process (critical thought) that should be applied.

How does this relate to simulation scenario design? We have the ability to engineer the scenario design to help the participants channel cognitive energy into those things that are important and away from those those things that are not. If we continue to run with the example of the basic metabolic profile as an example, we have choices on how said values are reported to the participants of our simulation.

We could have the participants look it up in the simulated electronic health record which takes time and cognitive processing as described above. We could give them a piece of paper or display the results on a screen demonstrating the seven values. This still takes significant cognitive processing to interpret the data. We could simply indicate that the basic metabolic profile result was “normal”.  This method significantly decreases the cognitive processing associated with the seven values of the basic metabolic profile and how it is to be interpreted into the context of the scenario. Also, one could make the argument that we are offering subtle, or perhaps not-so-subtle clues to the case that the basic metabolic profile is not a major part of what needs to be processed in the care of this particular patient.  

It is important to realize that all the examples above are viable options and there is not one that is superior to another. It is important that the decision is made during the design of the case that allows the participant(s) of the scenario to focus the appropriate cognitive spend on that which the designers of the scenario feel are most important. In other words, if it is part of the learning objectives that the participant should evaluate the actual values of the basic metabolic profile, then of course it would be appropriate to provide the requisite information at that level of detail. If, however, the results of the same test are perfunctory to the bigger picture of the case then one should consider a different mechanism of resulting values to the simulation participant.

A common misperception in the design of healthcare simulation scenarios is to try to re-create the realistic environment of the clinical atmosphere. While this is always a tempting choice, it is not without consequences. It comes from the mistaken belief that the goal of simulation scenarios is to re-create reality. Modern, successful simulationists need to recognize this outmoded, immature thought process.

In the context of a case where the basic metabolic profile is not significantly important that we should not design the “dance” (scenario) to include the steps of looking in the electronic health record and making determinations of the values associated with the test. It is a waste of time, and more importantly a waste of cognitive processing which is already artificially increased by the participant being involved in the simulation in the first place. It is in my opinion a violation of the learner contract between faculty and students.

While I am focusing on a simple example of a single test, I hope that you can imagine that this concept extrapolates to many, many decisions that are made in the scenario design process. For example, think about a chest x-ray. Do you result a chest x-ray as “normal”, “abnormal” or otherwise during the run time of the scenario? Or do you show an image of a chest x-ray and have your participants interpret the image? One answer is not superior to the other. It is just critically important that you evaluate what is best for the cognitive load of the learners involved in your scenario and how the decision relates to the details of the learning objectives you wish to achieve during the course of the simulation activity.

In moderate to complex cases associated with healthcare simulation the designer of the simulation, or architect, has a responsibility to craft the scenario to accomplish the learning objectives that are intended. In many scenarios, hundreds of decisions are made in terms of how participants extract data from the experience to incorporate into their performance of the simulation. It is critically important that as the designers of such learning events that we remain cognizant of the cognitive load placed upon our learner(s) that is associated with the normal care of patients, as well as the extra that is imposed upon them from participating in a simulation-based case.

Many of the decisions that we incorporate into the design of our scenarios have significant influence over this cognitive load, and the mental energy participants will spend to engage in the participation. We need to understand the impact of our choices and be deliberate with our design decisions to enhance the overall simulation-based learning process efficiency and effectiveness.

Leave a comment

Filed under Curriculum, design, scenario design, simulation, Uncategorized

July 23, 2019 · 2:20 pm

5 Elements in My Approach to the Learning Contract in Simulation

In simulation-based education there is a relationship between the faculty of the program and the participants that is important during all aspects of simulation. The relationship has tenets of trust and respect that must be considered when designing as well as conducting simulations. I have heard this relationship referred to by a few titles such as psychological contract, fiction contract, learning contract, all of which are generally referring to the same thing.Smiling asian female vacancy candidate shaking hand with hr manager

Probably more important than the title, is what such a relationship embodies or focuses on. I view it as an agreement between two or more parties that acknowledges several aspects of simulation based programs and works to establish rules of engagement and principles of interactions between those involved.

In my practice of using simulation for clinical education I work a great deal with practicing professionals, who by in large are physicians. I generally adhere to five elements or premises over the course of interactions that I design as well as provide for the participants of my programs.

  1. Meaningful use of Your Time.

Acknowledging up front that participating in learning activities takes time away from their busy schedule. I assure them that the content of the program is carefully crafted to fill the needs of their learning cohort in the mostly timely way possible. I refer to refinements of the course that have occurred in response to feedback from prior participants to help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.

  1. This is NOT real and that’s really ok!

During the orientation I am always careful to point out that not everything they are going to experience will look or feel real. I include the idea that things are “real-enough” to help us create a successful learning environment. I also let them know the things that may feel somewhat real during the simulation. Additionally, I emphasize that the “realness” is not the primary focus and point out that the learning and reinforcement of high-quality clinical practice is the ultimate outcome.

  1. We are not here to trick you.

I find that practicing professionals often come to simulation training endeavors with an idea that we design programs to exploit their mistakes. I assure them this is not the case. I am careful to include an overview of what they can expect during all phases of the learning. For example, when I am conducting difficult airway programs, I carefully orient them to every feature of the simulators airway mechanics before starting any scenarios. I also let them know that the cases associated with our scenarios are modeled after actual cases of clinical care. I explain that while we don’t model every detail of the case, that we work hard to design situations that provide opportunity to promote discussion and learning that would have or should have resulted from the actual case.

  1. Everyone makes mistakes. We are here to learn from each other.

At the most basic part of this element, I point out that WE all make mistakes and that is part of being human. I let them know that everyone is likely to make a mistake throughout the learning program. I carefully weave in the idea that it is far better to make mistakes in the simulated environment as opposed to when providing actual clinical care.

Further, I advance the idea that we can learn from each other. As everyone in clinical practice knows, there are many ways to do most things correctly. While this idea can be challenging because often people feel that “their way” is the correct way, I point out that with an open mind and professional, collaborative discussion we can share learnings with each other.

Contract Signing Concept

  1. We are here to help you be the best you can be.

Leveraging the idea that almost all practicing professional hold themselves to high levels of performance standards as well as the desire to improve can provide a powerful connection between the faculty and participants of a healthcare simulation program. I put forth this idea along with carefully tying in a review of the prior four elements. Further, I point out to them the opportunity to perfect the routine exists in our learning programs. I then pivot to highlight that some aspects of the program exist to practice and learn from situations that they may encounter infrequently that may have high stakes for the patient.

So, in summary, I believe the relationship between faculty members and participants of simulation-based education programs is multi-factorial and demands attention. Depending on the learners and the topics of the program, the elements that serve as the underpinning of the relationship may range from few to many, and moderate to significant in complexity.

In my simulation work providing clinical education that involves practicing physicians as participants, I pay close attention to the five elements described above throughout the design as well as the conducting of the learning encounters.

I invite you to reflect upon your approach to the development and maintenance of the relationship between your faculty and participants of your simulation efforts.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under debriefing, design, simulation

Tagged as , , , ,