Fundamental underpinnings of simulation education: describing a four-component instructional design approach to healthcare simulation fellowships

Advances in Simulation

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2021, Pages

  Meguerdichian, Michael J ^a,b   Bajaj, Komal ^b,c   Walker, Katie ^b  

^a Columbia University School of Medicine ^*  (United States)

^b NY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive Load Theory; Curriculum design; Faculty development; Program design; Simulation fellowship

Indexed keywords

EID: 85160281690     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20590628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s41077-021-00171-3     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ahmed RA, Frey J, Gardner AK, Gordon JA, Yudkowsky R, Tekian A. Characteristics and core curricular elements of medical simulation fellowships in North America. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(2):252–5. 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00276.1. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00276.1
2. Ahmed RA, Frey J, Hughes P, Tekian A. AM Last Page Simulation Fellowship Programs. Acad Med. 2017;92(8):2017. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001780
3. Hughes PG, Brito JC, Ahmed RA. Training the trainers: a survey of simulation fellowship graduates. Can Med Educ J. 2017;8(3):81–7. DOI: 10.36834/cmej.36865
4. Frallicciardi A, Vora S, Bentley S. Development of an emergency medicine simulation fellowship consensus curriculum. Simul Healthc. 2016;23(9):1054–60. 10.1111/acem.13019. DOI: 10.1111/acem.13019
5. Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Wong N, Bentley S, Walker K, Cheng A, et al. Simulation fellowships: survey of current summative assessment practices. Simul Healthc. 2019;14(5):300–6. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000384. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000384
6. Natal B, Szyld D, Pasichow S, Bismilla Z, Pirie J, Cheng A. Simulation fellowship programs: an international survey of program directors. Acad Med. 2017;92(8):1204–11. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001668. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001668
7. Fraser KL, Ayres P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2015;10(5):295–307. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000097. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000097
8. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instr Sci. 2004;32(1-2):1–8. 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0. DOI: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0
9. Sweller J. van Merrienboer, G JJ, Paas FGWC. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10(3):251–96. 10.1023/A:1022193728205. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
10. van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):85–93. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x
11. Sweller J, van Merriënboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;31(2):261–92. 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
12. Fraser K, Huffman J, Ma I, Sobczak M, McIlwrick J, Wright B, et al. The emotional and cognitive impact of unexpected simulated patient death. Chest. 2014;145(5):958–63. 10.1378/chest.13-0987. DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0987
13. Fraser K, Ma I, Teteris E, Baxter H, Wright B, Mclaughlin K. Emotion, cognitive load and learning outcomes during simulation training. Med Educ. 2012;46(11):1055–62. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04355.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04355.x
14. Meguerdichian M, Walker K, Bajaj K. Working memory is limited: improving knowledge transfer by optimising simulation through cognitive load theory. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2016;2(4):131–8. 10.1136/bmjstel-2015-000098. DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2015-000098
15. van Merriënboer JJG, Kirschner PA. Ten steps of complex learning: a systematic approach to four-component instructional design; 2018.
16. Society for Simulation in Healthcare. Practice standards. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from http://www.ssih.org/credentialing/accreditation/provisional-Accreditation/Standards.
17. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the F. Educ Psychol. 2006;41(2):75–86 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&hid=106&sid=5beb2cf0-e321-4ab9-b720-a95431554483%40sessionmgr112. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
18. Haji FA, Cheung JJH, Woods N, Regehr G, de Ribaupierre S, Dubrowski A. Thrive or overload? The effect of task complexity on novices’ simulation-based learning. Med Educ. 2016;50(9):955–68. 10.1111/medu.13086. DOI: 10.1111/medu.13086
19. Kester L, Paas F. Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2006;352(3):343–52. 10.1002/acp.1250. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1250
20. Kirschner PA. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr. 2002;12(1):1–10. 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
21. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2014;9(6):339–49. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047
22. García-pacios J, Río D. Del, Villalobos D, Ruiz-vargas JM, Maestú F. Emotional interference-based forgetting in short-term memory. Cognitive inhibition of pleasant but not unpleasant biologically relevant distractors. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1–16. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00582. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00582
23. Kolbe M, Eppich W, Rudolph J, Meguerdichian M, Catena H, Cripps A, et al. Managing psychological safety in debriefings: a dynamic balancing act. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2019;6(3):1–8. 10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470. DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000470
24. Grant VJ, Robinson T, Catena H, Eppich W, Cheng A. Difficult debriefing situations: a toolbox for simulation educators. Med Teach. 2018;40(7):703–12. 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1468558. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1468558
25. Cheng A, Eppich W, Kolbe M, Meguerdichian M, Bajaj K, Grant V. A conceptual framework for the development of debriefing skills: a journey of discovery, growth, and maturity. Simul Healthc. 2020;15(1):55–60. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000398. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000398
26. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Rivard P, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin. 2007;25(2):361–76. 10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007. DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2007.03.007
27. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):49–55. 10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006. DOI: 10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006
28. Schick CJ, Weiss M, Kolbe M, Marty A, Spahn DR. Simulation with PARTS (Phase-Augmented Training Scenarios): a structure facilitating research and assessment in simulation. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2015;10(3):178–87. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000085. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000085
29. Kolbe M, Marty A, Seelandt J, Grande B. How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns. Adv Simul. 2016;1:1. 10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7. DOI: 10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7
30. Roze Des Ordons AL, Cheng A, Gaudet JE, Downar J, Lockyer JM. Exploring faculty approaches to feedback in the simulated setting: are they evidence informed? Simul Healthc. 2018;13(3):195–200. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000289. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000289
31. Ruesseler M, Sterz J, Bender B, Hoefer S, Walcher F. The effect of video-assisted oral feedback versus oral feedback on surgical communicative competences in undergraduate training. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;43(4):461–6. 10.1007/s00068-016-0734-x. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-016-0734-x
32. Grant JS, Dawkins D, Molhook L, Keltner NL, Vance DE. Comparing the effectiveness of video-assisted oral debriefing and oral debriefing alone on behaviors by undergraduate nursing students during high-fidelity simulation. Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(5):479–84. 10.1016/j.nepr.2014.05.003. DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2014.05.003
33. Hunt EA, Duval-arnould JM, Nelson-mcmillan KL, et al. Pediatric resident resuscitation skills improve after “ Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice ” training. Resuscitation. 2014;85(7):945–51. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.02.025. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.02.025
34. Clapper TC, Leighton K. Incorporating the reflective pause in simulation: a practical guide. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2020;51(1):32–8. 10.3928/00220124-20191217-07. DOI: 10.3928/00220124-20191217-07
35. Brett-fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, et al. Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2012;7(5):288–94. 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228
36. Maestre JM, Rudolph JW. Theories and styles of debriefing: the good judgment method as a tool for formative assessment in healthcare. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2014;214(4):216–20. 10.1016/j.rec.2014.05.018. DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2014.05.018
37. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA. Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2011;25(4):615–24. 10.1002/acp.1730. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1730
38. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA. Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25(2):306–14. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008
39. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA. Superiority of collaborative learning with complex tasks: a research note on an alternative affective explanation. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(1):53–7. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.012. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.012
40. Sørensen JL, Van Der Vleuten C, Rosthøj S, et al. Simulation-based multiprofessional obstetric anaesthesia training conducted in situ versus off-site leads to similar individual and team outcomes: a randomised educational trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):1–14. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008344. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008344
41. Hattie J, Timerley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487
42. Wisniewski B, Zierer K, Hattie J. The power of feedback revisited: a meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Front Psychol. 2020;10(January):1–14. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
43. Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS). Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2015;10(2):106–15. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072
44. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van HR, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094–102. 10.1001/jama.296.9.1094. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1094
45. Durand C, Secheresse T, Leconte M. Intérêt de la grille DASH pour l’évaluation de la qualité des débriefings: étude au cours d’un programme de simulation autour de la réanimation du nouveau-né en salle de naissance. Arch Pediatr. 2017;24(12):1197–204. 10.1016/j.arcped.2017.09.017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arcped.2017.09.017
46. Burgess A, Shah K, Hough O, Hynynen K. Resident versus faculty member simulatin debriefing. Clin Teach. 2016;15(5):477–91. 10.1586/14737175.2015.1028369.Focused. DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2015.1028369.Focused