↓ Skip to main content

Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
356 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0838-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jette Led Sørensen, Doris Østergaard, Vicki LeBlanc, Bent Ottesen, Lars Konge, Peter Dieckmann, Cees Van der Vleuten

Abstract

Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations. Non-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed. Based on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 355 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 15%
Researcher 44 12%
Other 32 9%
Student > Postgraduate 30 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 25 7%
Other 100 28%
Unknown 73 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 156 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 14%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Computer Science 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 92 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,855,732
of 21,305,531 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#273
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,008
of 391,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,305,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 391,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them