Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
-
Review Meta Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
To determine the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation, we summarized the results of studies comparing technology-enhanced simulation training with nonsimulation instruction for health professions learners. We systematically searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus through May 2011 for relevant articles. Working in duplicate, we abstracted information on instructional design, outcomes, and study quality. ⋯ In random-effects meta-analysis, pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring simulation) were as follows: satisfaction outcomes, 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.81; n = 20 studies); knowledge, 0.30 (0.16-0.43; n = 42); time measure of skills, 0.33 (0.00-0.66; n = 14); process measure of skills, 0.38 (0.24-0.52; n = 51); product measure of skills, 0.66 (0.30-1.02; n = 11); time measure of behavior, 0.56 (-0.07 to 1.18; n = 7); process measure of behavior, 0.77 (-0.13 to 1.66; n = 11); and patient effects, 0.36 (-0.06 to 0.78; n = 9). For 5 studies reporting comparative costs, simulation was more expensive and more effective. In summary, in comparison with other instruction, technology-enhanced simulation is associated with small to moderate positive effects.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Skills transfer after proficiency-based simulation training in superficial femoral artery angioplasty.
The purpose of this study was to explore whether basic endovascular skills acquired using proficiency-based simulation training in superficial femoral artery (SFA) angioplasty translate to real-world performance. ⋯ Basic endovascular skills acquired using proficiency-based simulation training in SFA angioplasty do translate to real-world performance.
-
This study examined the reliability of the scores of an assessment instrument, the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH), in evaluating the quality of health care simulation debriefings. The secondary objective was to evaluate whether the instrument's scores demonstrate evidence of validity. ⋯ The DASH scores showed evidence of good reliability and preliminary evidence of validity. Additional work will be needed to assess the generalizability of the DASH based on the psychometrics of DASH data from other settings.