↓ Skip to main content

Method matters: impact of in-scenario instruction on simulation-based teamwork training

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, November 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Method matters: impact of in-scenario instruction on simulation-based teamwork training
Published in
Advances in Simulation, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41077-017-0059-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecilia Escher, Hans Rystedt, Johan Creutzfeldt, Lisbet Meurling, Sofia Nyström, Johanna Dahlberg, Samuel Edelbring, Torben Nordahl Amorøe, Håkan Hult, Li Felländer-Tsai, Madeleine Abrandt-Dahlgren

Abstract

The rationale for introducing full-scale patient simulators in training to improve patient safety is to recreate clinical situations in a realistic setting. Although high-fidelity simulators mimic a wide range of human features, simulators differ from the body of a sick patient. The gap between the simulator and the human body implies a need for facilitators to provide information to help participants understand scenarios. The authors aimed at describing different methods that facilitators in our dataset used to provide such extra scenario information and how the different methods to convey information affected how scenarios played out. A descriptive qualitative study was conducted to examine the variation of methods to deliver extra scenario information to participants. A multistage approach was employed. The authors selected film clips from a shared database of 31 scenarios from three participating simulation centers. A multidisciplinary research team performed a collaborative analysis of representative film clips focusing on the interplay between participants, facilitators, and the physical environment. After that, the entire material was revisited to further examine and elaborate the initial findings. The material displayed four distinct methods for facilitators to convey information to participants in simulation-based teamwork training. The choice of method had impact on the participating teams regarding flow of work, pace, and team communication. Facilitators' close access to the teams' activities when present in the simulation suite, either embodied or disembodied in the simulation, facilitated the timing for providing information, which was critical for maintaining the flow of activities in the scenario. The mediation of information by a loudspeaker or an earpiece from the adjacent operator room could be disturbing for team communication. In-scenario instruction is an essential component of simulation-based teamwork training that has been largely overlooked in previous research. The ways in which facilitators convey information about the simulated patient have the potential to shape the simulation activities and thereby serve different learning goals. Although immediate timing to maintain an adequate pace is necessary for professionals to engage in training of medical emergencies, novices may gain from a slower tempo to train complex clinical team tasks systematically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,582,793
of 24,989,834 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#65
of 263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,271
of 450,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,989,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 450,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.