Doing Interprofessional Simulation

Abstract

This chapter illustrate how the social and material arrangements for interprofessional simulation produces different conditions for learning. The first section focuses on the emerging medical knowing, affective knowing and communicative knowing in the socio-material arrangements of three locations involved in the simulation, i.e the simulation room, the observation room and the reflection room, during the course of events in the scenario. The second section focuses on emerging rhythms of collaboration. Different ways of relating to the manikin as a technical, medical and human body, and the relevance of these findings for simulation pedagogy are described.

Sociomaterial perspective as applied in interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a scoping review

“…These include power dynamics and conflict resolution among team members (Fenwick, 2012 ), deception of power wherein IPE and IPC practices are being subtly used to reinforce the dominance of the medical profession (Freshwater et. al., 2014 ), challenging the boundaries of disciplinary and professional knowledge to form new ways of knowing (Hopwood et al, 2019 ) and identifying repressive conditions within professional practice (Fenwick, 2012 ).…”

Sociomateriality perspectives in interprofessional education and practice: A scoping review

“…Moreover, there were records that referenced and utilised theories that shared common elements with sociomateriality. These included relational ontology 22 , normalisation process theory 26 , theory on 'material infrastructure' 26 , team role theory 32 , presage-process-product (3P) of the student learning theory 34 , structuration theory 34 , document theory 36 , leadership-as-practice theory 42 , critical theory 9 , and Gergen's social-constructionist language theory 10 . Other theories from various disciplines used to frame a sociomaterial lens included critical realism 12 , distributed cognition 12 , and personal construct psychology 12 .…”

“…<Insert Fig. 3 here> Nineteen articles primarily discussed the application of sociomaterial practices in IPE and IPC 1,2,11,17,20,23,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]36,37,41,42 . These studies explained health and social care practices from a sociomaterial perspective: the use of mannequins, medical equipment, technology, and physical spaces as crucial ampli ers in establishing the bi-directional relationship between the social and the material.…”

“…These include power dynamics and con ict resolution among team members (Fenwick, 2012), deception of power wherein IPE and IPC practices are being subtly used to reinforce the dominance of medicine (Freshwater et. al., 2014), challenging the boundaries of disciplinary and professional knowledge to form new ways of knowing (Hopwood et al, 2019) and identifying repressive conditions within professional practice (Fenwick, 2012).…”

“…Twenty-one studies presented the development of group formation and social processes through con guration of learning setups and human and non-human regulatory processes [3][4][5][6][7]10,16,[17][18][19]22,[24][25][26][27]33,[36][37][38][39]42 , three of which focused on sharing of practices with other organisations and/or agencies 16,38,39 . Two studies illustrated the roles of nurse practitioners and clinical managers 23,43 , while other studies presented ndings related to sociomaterial learning activities intertwined with practical clinical application 13,14,29,30,32 , re ection of IPC during learning activities employing sociomaterial approaches 28,31 , and methods in facilitating interprofessional learning employing concepts of socio-materiality 1,21,41 .…”