Tag Archives: education
Discussing the real goals of Healthcare Simulation as it relates to the education of individuals and teams. Avoiding the tendency to put the primary focus into recreating reality, and instead providing the adequate experience that allows deep reflection and learning should be the primary focus. This will help you achieve more from your simulation efforts!
How do you respond to your financial administrator or controller of the purse strings when they ask you what the return on investment is for your hospital-based simulation program? It’s quite complicated.
Return on investment in today’s vernacular implies that there is a financial spreadsheet that can show a positive bottom line after revenue (or direct cost savings) and expenses are accounted for. This is really difficult to do with simulation.
I have seen business plan after business plan of simulation centers that have promised their administration that they will become financially positive and start bringing in big bucks for the institution in some given period of time. Usually it’s part of the business plan that justifies the standing up of the simulation center. I think I can count on one hand the simulation programs that have actually achieved this status. Why is this?
The answer is because calculating discrete return on investment from the simulation alone is extraordinarily difficult to do. While there are some examples in the literature that attempt to quantify in dollar terms a return on investment, they are however few and far between. It is largely confined to some low hanging fruit with the most common example and published in the literature focusing on central line training.
Successfully integrated hospital focused simulation programs likely have found a way to quantify part of their offerings in a dollars and cents accounting scheme, but likely are providing tremendous value to their organizations that are extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate on spreadsheet.
What is the value the simulation center may bring to the ability of a hospital to recruit more patients because the community is aware of patient safety efforts and advanced training to improve care? What is the value of a simulation center in its ability to create exciting training opportunities that allow the staff to feel like the system is investing in them and ultimately helping with recruiting of new staff, along with retention of existing staff members?
What is the value or potential in the ability to avoid causing harm to patients such as mismanaged difficult airway because of simulation training of physicians and other providers who provide such care? What is the value of litigation avoidance for the same topic?
Also, the value proposition of the successfully implemented simulation program for patient safety extinguishes itself over time if it significantly reduces or eliminates the underlying problem. This is the so-called phenomenon of safety being a dynamic, nonevent. Going back to the more concrete example of airway if your airway management mishap rates have been essentially zero over several years, the institutional memory may become fuzzy on why you invest so much money and difficult airway training….. A conundrum to be sure.
I think of fire alarm systems in the hospital as similar situation Let’s compare the two. Fire alarm systems detect or “discover” fires, began to put the fire out, and disseminate the news. Simulation programs have the ability to “detect” or discover potential patient safety problems for the identification of latent threats, poor systems design or staffing for example. Once identified, the simulation program develops training that helps “put out” the patient safety threat. One could argue that the training itself is the dissemination of information that a patient safety “fire” exists.
Fire alarm systems and hospitals cost hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars to install and run on the annual basis. But the chief financial officer never asks what’s the return on investment? Why is that?
Well, perhaps it is a non-issue because fire alarm systems have successfully been written into law, regulations of building codes and so on. Regulation is an interesting idea for simulation to be sure but probably not for a long time.
However, if you think about it beyond a regulatory requirement, the likelihood of a given fire alarm system actually saving a life is probably significantly less probable then a well-integrated simulation program that is providing patient safety programs designed around the needs of the institution it serves. Admittedly the image of hundreds of people being trapped in a burning building is probably more compelling to the finance guy then one patient at a time dying from hypoxia from a mismanaged difficult airway.
Do you really know what to do when the fire alarm system goes off in your hospital? I mean we have little rituals like close the doors etc. But what next? Do we run? If we run, do we run toward the fire? Or away from the fire? Do we evacuate all the patients? Do we individually call the fire department? Do we find hoses and start squirting out the fire?
When we conduct simulation-based training in hospitals that are aligned with the patient safety needs of the given institution we are extinguishing or minimizing the situation that patients will undergo or suffer from unintended patient harm. The existence of simulation programs and attention to patient safety education are a critical need for the infrastructure of any hospital caring for patients.
The more we can expand upon this concept and allow our expertise in simulation to contribute to the overall mission of the institution in reducing potential harm to patients and hospital staff, the more likely we will receive continuing support and be recognized as important infrastructure to providing the highest quality and safety to our patients.
Just like the fire alarm systems.
Debriefing in healthcare education is a specific type of communication designed to allow enhanced learning through a post hoc analysis and (ideally) structured conversation of an event. While there are many different styles and methods commonly described for use in healthcare simulations there are generally some consistent principles. Common features of the goals of just about every debriefing method includes attempting to ensure that the participants involved in the event leave with an understanding of areas in which they performed well and areas that they could improve upon should the face a similar situation in the future.
Debriefing is not easy to do well for a variety of reasons, and suffice it to say generally improves with practice and a focus on improvement. Depending on the facilitator and/or the learner(s) many people struggle with ensuring learners depart the debriefing with a clear understanding of areas needed for improvement. Other times debriefers can make the mistake of focusing only on the negative, forgetting to elucidate the things that may have been done well.
I believe we need to always incorporate the needs of the patient into the debriefing. The thought that the simulation benefits the patient should permeate throughout the planning of all events in healthcare simulation including the debriefing.
With the proliferation of simulation based learning over the last two decades there has been an increased interest in faculty development and training of people to develop debriefing skills. Nearly every discussion of faculty training in the simulation healthcare simulation space includes some discussion of the safe learning environment and student-centered learning. These concepts are embedded in nearly every discussion and every publication on debriefing and feedback.
Ostensibly the safe learning environment is referring to a facilitator controlling the environment of simulations and debriefings to provide an environment of comfort that encourages participants to be able to share freely what is on their mind during the simulation and the debriefing without fear of repercussion, ridicule or reprisal. I also believe that it should encourage simulation faculty to remain vigilant for opportunities that need some sort active facilitation to assist a participant thought to be struggling with the situation from either an emotional or perhaps stressful stimulus.
Having been involved in the teaching of healthcare providers for almost thirty years and when thinking backing to the late eighties, I personally participated in early “simulations” designed to “knock students off of their game”. Thus, I can certainly relate to, and applaud the emergence of the concept of a safe-environment.
However, I now believe that the concept of a student-centered approach to healthcare education contributes to the illusion that the student is the ultimate benefactor of healthcare education programs. The concept has evolved because of a natural parenteral feeling of protection for students, along with the fact that experiential learning can be stressful. Balancing these factors can likely contribute to highly effective learning as well as a positive learning experience for the participant.
When applied to healthcare education student-centered learning can be a bit misleading, perhaps a bit irresponsible, in so far that it completely ignores the fact that the patient is the ultimate recipient of the educational efforts. It may be more comfortable for the faculty in the immediate because the student is present and the patient is not. However, if you think about it, down-stream it is likely incomplete and ultimately may do a disservice to both the learners and their patients.
The challenge is that when the pervasive thought process is student-centered, the culture, requisite curriculum and learning opportunity design will favor such a position. This can subtly influence the debriefing and interactions with participants in a way that fails to correct inaccurate or poor performance and/or reinforce decisions or actions that should be carried forward to actual care.
My colleagues and I have coined the term Patient-Centered Debriefing. I originally talked about it on my simulation blog in 2013. In the training of debriefers and the modeling of debriefing, we encourage the consideration of the needs of the patient and these seems to pull to a more appropriate anchor point. This slight shift in focus can also help to humanize the situation beyond the needs of the learner. Taking on the responsibility of eventual care of an actual patient can shift the mindset of the instructor to ensure the real goals of the simulations are met.
What does patient-centered debriefing look like? At casual observation it would appear the same as any other debriefing that is conducted with acceptable methods in 2017 under a premise of student centered debriefing. The difference is the facilitator(s), as well as perhaps the students, would be considering the ultimate patient outcomes associated with the learning objectives of the given scenario. Thus, if properly conducted, facilitator(s) would be less likely to gloss over or omit reconciliation of mistakes and/or errors of commission or omission that occurred during a simulation that would likely contribute to adverse sequela for the patient in a comparable actual healthcare setting. Simultaneously, however the facilitator will be maintaining the enshrined traditional “safe learning environment”.
In considering the needs of the patient there is a subtle reminder that it is our job as healthcare educators to best prepare learners for this reality and the time that we have to do it in is precious. Further, particularly in simulation based learning it should be an ever present reminder that this is our ultimate purpose. I think it is particularly important for simulation facilitators who are not actively involved in the care of patients to consider this position. This is not to suggest that they are not doing a great job, but it seems like a reasonable active reminder to consider the needs of the patients who will be cared for by the learners involved in the simulation.
I am not suggesting that we abandon the attention to providing a safe learning environment for simulations as well as clinical learning environments. I do believe that this contributes to effective learning particularly in the simulated setting. I do believe that we need to reconsider the concept of student-centered learning insofar as the student being thought of as the epicenter of the overall education process and outcomes.
Reserving the definition and concepts of student centricity for considering the scholarly needs, learning styles, designs and appeals to the intrinsic motivating factors seem more appropriate. Any learning program in healthcare is far better to have a patient-centered axis from which all other actions and designs emerge.
I invite you to consider adopting a patient-centered debriefing into your work!
Most people have heard someone say “In Simulation, debriefing is where all of the learning occurs.” I frequently hear this when running faculty development workshops and programs, which isn’t as shocking as hearing this espoused at national and international meetings in front of large audiences! What a ridiculous statement without a shred of evidence or a realistic common sense approach to think it would be so. Sadly, I fear it represents an unfortunate instructor-centered perspective and/or a serious lack of appreciation for potential learning opportunities provided by simulation based education.
Many people academically toil over the technical definitions of the word feedback and try to contrast in from a description of debriefing as if they are juxtaposed. They often present it in a way as if one is good and the other is bad. There is a misguided notion that feedback is telling someone, or lecturing to someone to get a point across. I believe that is a narrow interpretation of the word. I think that there are tremendous opportunities for learning from many facets of simulation that may be considered feedback.
Well-designed simulation activities hopefully provide targeted learning opportunities of which part of it is experiential, sometimes immersive, in some way. I like to think of debriefing as one form of feedback that a learner may encounter during simulation based learning, commonly occurring after engaging in some sort of immersive learning activity or scenario. Debriefing can be special if done properly and will actually allow the learner to “discover” new knowledge, perhaps reinforce existing knowledge, or maybe even have corrections made to inaccurate knowledge. No matter how you look at it at the end of the day it is a form of feedback, that can likely lead, or contribute to learning. But to think that during the debriefing is the only opportunity for learning is incredibly short-sighted.
There are many other forms of feedback and learning opportunities that learners may experience in the course of well-designed simulation based learning. The experience of the simulation itself is ripe with opportunities for feedback. If a learner puts supplemental oxygen on a simulated patient that is demonstrating hypoxia on the monitor via the pulse oximetry measurements and the saturations improve, that is a form of feedback. Conversely, if the learner(s) forgets to provide the supplemental oxygen and the saturations or other signs of respiratory distress continue to worsen then that can be considered feedback as well. The latter two example examples are what I refer to as intrinsic feedback as they are embedded in the scenario design to provide clues to the learners, as well as to approximate what may happen to a real patient in a similar circumstance.
With regard to intrinsic feedback, it is only beneficial if it is recognized and properly interpreted by the learner(s) either while actively involved in the simulated clinical encounter, and if not, perhaps in the debriefing. The latter should be employed if the intrinsically designed feedback is important to accomplishing the learning objectives germane to the simulation.
There are still other forms of feedback that likely contribute to the learning that are not part of the debriefing. In the setting of a simulated learning encounter involving several learners, the delineation of duties, the acceptance or rejection of treatment suggestions are all potentially ripe for learning. If a learner suggests a therapy that is embraced by the team, or perhaps stimulates a group discussion during the course of the scenario the resultant conversation and ultimate decision can significantly add to the learning of the involved participants.
Continuing that same idea, perhaps the decision to provide, withhold, or check the dosage of a particularly therapy invokes a learner to check a reference, or otherwise look up a reference that provides valuable information that solidifies a piece of information in the mind of the leaner. The learner may announce such findings to the team while the scenario is still underway thereby sharing the knowledge with the rest of the treatment team. Waaah Laaaah…… more learning that may occur outside of the debriefing!
Finally, I believe there is an additional source of learning that occurs outside of the debriefing. Imagine when a learner experiences something or becomes aware of something during a scenario which causes them to realize they have a knowledge gap in that particular area. Maybe they forgot a critical drug indication, dosage or adverse interaction. Perhaps there was something that just stimulated their natural curiosity. It is possible that those potential learning items are not covered in the debriefing as they may not be core to the learning objectives. This may indeed stimulate the learner to engage in self-study to enhance their learning further to close that perceived area of a knowledge gap. What???? Why yes, more learning outside of the debriefing!
In fact, we hope that this type of stimulation occurs on the regular basis as a part of active learning that may have been prompted by the experiential aspects provided by simulation. Such individual stimulation of learning is identified in the sentinel publication of Dr. Barry Issenberg et al in Vol 27 of Medical Teacher in 2005 describing key features of effective simulation.
So hopefully I have convinced you, or reinforced your belief that the potential for learning from simulation based education spans far beyond the debriefing. Please recognize that this statement made by others likely reflects a serious misunderstanding and underappreciation for learning that can and should be considered with the use of simulation. The implication of such short-sightedness can have huge impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of simulation that begin with curriculum and design.
So the next time you are incorporating simulation into your education endeavor, sit back and think of all of the potential during which learning may occur. Of course the debriefing in one such activity during which we hope learning to occur. Thinking beyond the debriefing and designing for the bigger picture of potential learning that can be experienced by the participants is likely going to help you achieve positive outcomes from your overall efforts.
One of the things that is a challenge for healthcare education is the reliance on random opportunity for clinical events to present themselves for a given group of learners to encounter as part of a pathway of a structured learning curriculum. This uncertainty of exposure and eventual development of competency is part of what keep our educational systems time-based which is fraught with inefficiencies by its very nature.
Simulation curriculum design at present often embeds simulation in a rather immature development model in which there is an “everybody does all of the simulations” approach. If there is a collection of some core topics that are part and parcel to a given program, combined with a belief, or perhaps proof, that simulation is a preferred modality for the topic, then it makes sense for those exposures. Let’s move beyond the topics or situations that are best experienced by everyone.
If you use a model of physician residency training for example, curriculum planners “hope” that over the course of a year a given first year resident will adequately manage an appropriate variety of cases. The types of cases, often categorized by primary diagnosis, is embedded in some curriculum accreditation document under the label “Year 1.” For the purposes of this discussion lets change the terminology from Year 1 to Level 1 as we look toward the future.
What if we had a way to know that a resident managed the cases, and managed them well for level one? Perhaps one resident could accomplish the level one goals in six months, and do it well. Let’s call that resident, Dr. Fast. This could then lead to a more appropriate advancement of the resident though the training program as opposed to them advancing by the date on the calendar.
Now let’s think about it from another angle. Another resident who didn’t quite see all of the cases, or the variety of cases needed, but they are managing things well when they do it. Let’s call them Dr. Slow. A third resident of the program is managing an adequate number and variety, but is having quality issues. Let’s refer to them as Dr. Mess. An honest assessment of the current system is that all three residents will likely be advanced to hire levels of responsibilities based on the calendar without substantial attempt at remediation of understanding of the underlying deficiencies.
What are the program or educational goals for Drs. Fast, Slow and Mess? What are the differences? What are the similarities? What information does the program need to begin thinking in this competency based model? Is that information available now? Will it likely be in the future? Does it make sense that we will spend time and resources to put all three residents through the same simulation curriculum?
While there may be many operational, culture, historical models and work conditions that provide barriers to such a model, thinking about a switch to a competency based model forces one to think deeper about the details of the overall mission. The true forms of educational methods, assessment tools, exposure to cases and environments, should be explored for both efficiency and effective effectiveness. Ultimately the outcomes we are trying to achieve for a given learner progressing through a program would be unveiled. Confidence in the underlying data will be a fundamental necessary component of a competency based system. In this simple model, the two functional data points are quantity and quality of given opportunities to learn and demonstrate competence.
This sets up intriguing possibilities for the embedding of simulation into the core curriculum to function in a more dynamic way and contribute mightily to the program outcomes.
Now think of the needs of Dr. Slow and Dr. Mess. If we had insight combined with reliable data, we could customize the simulation pathway for the learner to maximally benefit their progression through the program. We may need to provide supplement simulations to Dr. Slow to allow practice with a wider spectrum of cases, or a specific diagnosis, category of patient, or situation for them to obtain exposure. Ideally this additional exposure that is providing deliberate practice opportunities could also include learning objectives to help them increase their efficiencies.
In the case of Dr. Mess, the customization of the simulation portion of the curriculum provide deliberate practice opportunities with targeted feedback directly relevant to their area(s) of deficiency, ie a remediation model. This exposure for Dr. Mess could be constructed to provide a certain category of patient, or perhaps situation, that they are reported to handle poorly. The benefit in the case of Dr. Mess is the simulated environment can often be used to tease out the details of the underlying deficiency in a way that learning in the actual patient care environment is unable to expose.
Lastly, in our model recall that Dr. Fast may not require any “supplemental” simulation thus freeing up sparse simulation and human resources necessary to conduct it. This is part of the gains in efficiencies that can be realized through a competency -based approach to incorporating simulation into a given curriculum.
Considering a switch to a competency based curriculum in healthcare education can be overwhelming simply based on the number of operational and administrative challenges. However, using a concept of a competency based implementation as a theoretical model can help envision a more thoughtful approach to curricular integration of simulation. If we move forward in a deliberate attempt to utilize simulation in a more dynamic way, it will lead to increases in efficiencies and effectiveness along with providing better stewardship of scarce resources.
Fellow simulationists, let’s get real. We should not be the enemy of lecture. Lecture is a very valuable form of education. What we should be campaigning against are bad lectures, and the use of lecture when it isn’t the best tool for the associated attempt at education.
We have all listened to lectures that were horrific and/or lectures presented by speakers who have/had horrific public speaking or presenting skills. But in essence a good lecture can be an incredibly efficient transfer of information. The one to many configuration that is in inherent in the format of lecture can lead to an amazing amount of materials covered, interpreted and/or organized by the presenter to raise the level of knowledge or understanding of the people in attendance.
Like anything else in education we need to stratify the needs of what we are trying to teach and create solutions by which to teach them. With regard to lecture as a tool, we need to find ways to engage the audience into active participation to enhance the comprehension, learning and attention of the participants. There are many tools available for this, some involving technology, some not. The onus is on the presenter to seek out techniques as well as technologies or creative ways to engage people in the audience into an active learning process.
I don’t think of simulation as an alternative, or better way to teach, then lecture. I view lecture and simulation as two different tools available to the educational design process to affect good learning. Much the same way that I would not say a screwdriver is a better tool than a pair of pliers.
Too many times at simulation meetings and in discussions with simulation enthusiasts I hear empirical lecture-bashings if it is old school, out-moded or something lacking value. During these conversations it becomes readily apparent that the person speaking doesn’t have full command of the fact that the main goal is education, not simulation, and that there are many ways to create effective learning environments.
Now lecture can get a bad rap deservedly. Go to a meeting and listen to a boring monotonous speaker drone on and read from their powerpoint slides while not even recognizing that there is an audience in front of them. Unfortunately that is still more common than not at many physician and nursing meetings. Or worse yet, in the new age of converting to flipped classrooms and on-line learning, people are taking the easy way out and moving videos of lectures and plopping them on-line and calling it on-line learning. How pitiful. How painful. The only thing I can imagine worse than a bad lecture in person, is a bad lecture on web based learning that I would have to suffer through.
So I still teach and lead workshops on helping people enhance their lecturing and presentation skills. In part because I continue to recognize that not only will lecture be around for a long time, it should be around for a long time because it CAN be incredibly powerful with the right preparation and in the right hands. Also I continue to recognize the value of seeing modern healthcare education efforts being carefully thought out to understand which tool is best for which phase of learning after careful evaluation of the intended learner group and the topic at hand.
We need to end the silo-like thinking of simulation is better than lecture and convert to a more outcomes oriented thought process that evaluates and implements the appropriate educational tool for the intended educational accomplishments.
So let’s commit to each other to never do a simulation that could be just effective as an engaging lecture, AND lets all agree to never do a lecture that sucks.