Simulation in healthcare: A taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection

Abstract

Background: Simulation in healthcare lacks a dedicated framework and supporting taxonomy for instructional design (ID) to assist educators in creating appropriate simulation learning experiences. Aims: This article aims to fill the identified gap. It provides a conceptual framework for ID of healthcare simulation. Methods: The work is based on published literature and authors' experience with simulation-based education. Results: The framework for ID itself presents four progressive levels describing the educational intervention. Medium is the mode of delivery of instruction. Simulation modality is the broad description of the simulation experience and includes four modalities (computer-based simulation, simulated patient (SP), simulated clinical immersion, and procedural simulation) in addition to mixed, hybrid simulations. Instructional method describes the techniques used for learning. Presentation describes the detailed characteristics of the intervention. The choice of simulation as a learning medium is based on a matrix of simulation relating acuity (severity) to opportunity (frequency) of events, with a corresponding zone of simulation. An accompanying chart assists in the selection of appropriate media and simulation modalities based on learning outcomes. Conclusion: This framework should help educators incorporate simulation in their ID efforts. It also provides a taxonomy to streamline future research and ID efforts in simulation.

Tutors Perception on a Training Workshop on Simulation Based Medical Education

“…15 Medical training needs live patients to acquire the skills of health professionals, but there is also an issue about the patients' safety. The SBME alleviate this anxiety by developing health professionals' knowledge, skills, and attitudes while protecting patients from unnecessary risk.…”

Co-constructing Simulations with Learners: Roles, Responsibilities, and Impact

“…The debriefing component of this co-constructed module included four essential elements: active participation, developmental intent focused on learning and improvement, discussion of specific events, and input from multiple sources . Many studies do not support the ability for individuals to self-assess; however, Chiniara et al (2013) noted that self-assessment could have value as a motivational or development tool. The students received feedback from the instructor as well as from their peers, which enhanced the value of self-reflection.…”

“…Students in this pilot project assumed responsibility for their own acquisition of knowledge, which resulted in self-directed learning when preparing for both client and therapist roles. Their contribution to the co-created simulation included key input to the simulation modality, the type of instructional method, and the presentation of the simulation (Chiniara et al, 2013).…”

“…The co-constructed approach allowed for directed self-regulated learning (SRL) (Brydges et al, 2015), where responsibility shifted onto the students to take greater control over their own motivation and learning experiences to choose their own learning objectives (Cheng et al, 2016;Chiniara et al, 2013) and enhance the transfer of learning (Mori et al, 2015). This was the first time the co-constructed simulation module was implemented.…”

“…The conceptual foundation was informed by educational frameworks (Kolb, 1984;Miller, 1990) best practice simulation standards (Chiniara et al, 2013;Jeffries & Rogers, 2012) and self-regulated learning theories (Brydges et al, 2015;Brydges, Nair, Ma, Shanks, & Hatala, 2012;Brydges, Dubrowski, & Regehr, 2010). Features incorporated in the co-construction also included Cook et al's (2013) meta-analysis themes of instructional design features, including method of feedback and sequence of training; instructor role and modality, including the concept of fidelity; and group composition.…”