↓ Skip to main content

A systematic literature review of simulation models for non-technical skill training in healthcare logistics

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Simulation, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
A systematic literature review of simulation models for non-technical skill training in healthcare logistics
Published in
Advances in Simulation, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41077-018-0072-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Zhang, Thomas Grandits, Karin Pukk Härenstam, Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, Sebastiaan Meijer

Abstract

Resource allocation in patient care relies heavily on individual judgements of healthcare professionals. Such professionals perform coordinating functions by managing the timing and execution of a multitude of care processes for multiple patients. Based on advances in simulation, new technologies that could be used for establishing realistic representations have been developed. These simulations can be used to facilitate understanding of various situations, coordination training and education in logistics, decision-making processes, and design aspects of the healthcare system. However, no study in the literature has synthesized the types of simulations models available for non-technical skills training and coordination of care. A systematic literature review, following the PRISMA guidelines, was performed to identify simulation models that could be used for training individuals in operative logistical coordination that occurs on a daily basis. This article reviewed papers of simulation in healthcare logistics presented in the Web of Science Core Collections, ACM digital library, and JSTOR databases. We conducted a screening process to gather relevant papers as the knowledge foundation of our literature study. The screening process involved a query-based identification of papers and an assessment of relevance and quality. Two hundred ninety-four papers met the inclusion criteria. The review showed that different types of simulation models can be used for constructing scenarios for addressing different types of problems, primarily for training and education sessions. The papers identified were classified according to their utilized paradigm and focus areas. (1) Discrete-event simulation in single-category and single-unit scenarios formed the most dominant approach to developing healthcare simulations and dominated all other categories by a large margin. (2) As we approached a systems perspective (cross-departmental and cross-institutional), discrete-event simulation became less popular and is complemented by system dynamics or hybrid modeling. (3) Agent-based simulations and participatory simulations have increased in absolute terms, but the share of these modeling techniques among all simulations in this field remains low. An extensive study analyzing the literature on simulation in healthcare logistics indicates a growth in the number of examples demonstrating how simulation can be used in healthcare settings. Results show that the majority of studies create situations in which non-technical skills of managers, coordinators, and decision makers can be trained. However, more system-level and complex system-based approaches are limited and use methods other than discrete-event simulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Researcher 7 4%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 52 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 30 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Computer Science 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 59 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,622,705
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#218
of 235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,906
of 330,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.