Coro-Montanet G, Oliva-Fernández Ó, Sánchez-Ituarte J, Pardo-Monedero MJ

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 30-37
PDF size: 226.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: fidelity has been used, historically, to classify the type of simulation being performed, but it relies on a subjective and fuzzy concept. Objectives: this article proposes a categorized and subcategorized system to evaluate realism qualitatively and quantitatively through a more precise classification and a tool that evaluates the scenic realism indexes achieved in clinical simulation. It also aims to make known the elements of new science that support the new concept and to promote culture and consensus of what is measured, specifying how and by whom it should be evaluated for a better didactic design and analysis of the effects -favorable or not- of the realism achieved. Material and methods: a three-year mixed study (Delphi method and validation by means of Cronbach's Alpha, Guttman's Lambda 6 and correlations) and factor analysis was carried out to develop a new categorized and subcategorized concept of realism and a measurement tool -theoretical and mathematical- online, validated, bilingual (English/Spanish), free, available on computer and cell phone. Results: given the versatility of its indicators the tool is available for any healthcare discipline that applies the learning methodology based on stage simulation. Conclusions: the new concept and evaluation tool allows the development of a new culture of interpretation of the realism achieved.

REFERENCES

1. Wilson E, Hewett DG, Jolly BC, Janssens S, Beckmann MM. Is that realistic? The development of a realism assessment questionnaire and its application in appraising three simulators for a gynaecology procedure. Adv Simul (Lond). 2018; 3: 21.

2. Graham AC, McAleer S. An overview of realist evaluation for simulation-based education. Adv Simul 2018; 3 (13): 1-8.

3. Dromey BP, Peebles DM, Stoyanov DV. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of high-fidelity simulation in obstetric ultrasound. Simul Healthc. 2021; 16 (1): 52-59.

4. Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med. 2014; 89 (3): 387-392.

5. Cherry JP, Cristancho S, Lingard L, Cherry R, Haji F. Engagement: what is it good for? The role of learner engagement in healthcare simulation contexts. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018; 24 (4): 811-825.

6. Tun JK, Alinier G. Tang J. Kneebone RL. Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simul Gaming. 2015; 46 (2): 159-174.

7. Dieckmann P, Graba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007; 2 (3): 183-193.

8. Capogna E, Capogna G, Raccis D, Salvi F, Velardo M, Del Vecchio A. Eye tracking metrics and leader's behavioral performance during a post-partum hemorrhage high-fidelity simulated scenario. Adv Simul. 2021; 6 (4): 1-12.

9. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014; 9 (6): 339-349.

10. Andersson H, Svensson A, Frank C, Rantala A, Holmberg M, Bremer A. Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2022; 23 (1): 1-26.

11. Engstrom H, Hagiwara M, Backlund P, Lebram M, Lundberg L, Johannesson M. The impact of contextualization on immersion in healthcare simulation. Adv Simul. 2016; 1 (1): 1-11.

12. Coro-Montanet G, Pardo MMJ, De la Hoz Calvo A, Sánchez IJ, Oliva FO, Inouye SL. ProRealSim v1.0. Tool to calculate the realism index obtained in clinical simulation scenarios in physical environments [Internet]. Madrid: Universidad Europea; 2021 [6/10/2022]. Available in: https://prorealsim.universidadeuropea.com

13. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel, D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innovative model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Medical Educ. 2002; (36): 628-634.

14. DeForest CA, Blackman V, Alex JE, Reeves L, Mora A, Maddry J, et al. Christine A. An evaluation of navy en route care training using a high-fidelity medical simulation scenario of interfacility patient transport. Mil Med. 2018; 183 (9-10): e383-e391.