Nehal N Khamis1,2, Richard M Satava3, Sami A Alnassar4, David E Kern5. 1. Medical Education Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2925(45), Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia. nehalkhamis@yahoo.com. 2. Medical Education and Pathology Departments, College of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. nehalkhamis@yahoo.com. 3. Surgery Department, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Medical Education and Thoracic Surgery Departments, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid growth in the use of simulation in health professions education, courses vary considerably in quality. Many do not integrate efficiently into an overall school/program curriculum or conform to academic accreditation requirements. Moreover, some of the guidelines for simulation design are specialty specific. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a model that integrates best practices for effective simulation-based training and a modification of Kern et al.'s 6-step approach for curriculum development. We invited international simulation and health professions education experts to complete a questionnaire evaluating the model. We reviewed comments and suggested modifications from respondents and reached consensus on a revised version of the model. RESULTS: We recruited 17 simulation and education experts. They expressed a consensus on the seven proposed curricular steps: problem identification and general needs assessment, targeted needs assessment, goals and objectives, educational strategies, individual assessment/feedback, program evaluation, and implementation. We received several suggestions for descriptors that applied the steps to simulation, leading to some revisions in the model. CONCLUSION: We have developed a model that integrates principles of curriculum development and simulation design that is applicable across specialties. Its use could lead to high-quality simulation courses that integrate efficiently into an overall curriculum.
BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid growth in the use of simulation in health professions education, courses vary considerably in quality. Many do not integrate efficiently into an overall school/program curriculum or conform to academic accreditation requirements. Moreover, some of the guidelines for simulation design are specialty specific. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a model that integrates best practices for effective simulation-based training and a modification of Kern et al.'s 6-step approach for curriculum development. We invited international simulation and health professions education experts to complete a questionnaire evaluating the model. We reviewed comments and suggested modifications from respondents and reached consensus on a revised version of the model. RESULTS: We recruited 17 simulation and education experts. They expressed a consensus on the seven proposed curricular steps: problem identification and general needs assessment, targeted needs assessment, goals and objectives, educational strategies, individual assessment/feedback, program evaluation, and implementation. We received several suggestions for descriptors that applied the steps to simulation, leading to some revisions in the model. CONCLUSION: We have developed a model that integrates principles of curriculum development and simulation design that is applicable across specialties. Its use could lead to high-quality simulation courses that integrate efficiently into an overall curriculum.
Keywords:
Curriculum development; Model; Simulation; Six step
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Leizl Joy Nayahangan; Kristina Rue Nielsen; Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste; Michael Bachmann Nielsen; Charlotte Paltved; Karen Gilboe Lindorff-Larsen; Bjørn Ulrik Nielsen; Lars Konge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Domenico Veneziano; Achilles Ploumidis; Silvia Proietti; Theodoros Tokas; Guido Kamphuis; Giovanni Tripepi; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Ali Gozen; Alberto Breda; Joan Palou; Kemal Sarica; Evangelos Liatsikos; Kamran Ahmed; Bhaskar K Somani Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Peter Hertz; Kim Houlind; Jan Jepsen; Lars Bundgaard; Pernille Jensen; Mikkel Friis; Lars Konge; Flemming Bjerrum Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Morten la Cour; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Mark Alberti; Lars Konge Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Amy C Robertson; Leslie C Fowler; Jon Niconchuk; Michael Kreger; Elizabeth Rickerson; Nicholas Sadovnikoff; David L Hepner; Angela M Bader; Matthew D Mcevoy; Richard D Urman Journal: J Educ Perioper Med Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Rasmus Jørgensen; Christian B Laursen; Lars Konge; Pia Iben Pietersen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Gabrielle H van Ramshorst; Mirjam A Kaijser; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie; Bart A van Wagensveld Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Mirjam A Kaijser; Gabrielle H van Ramshorst; Marloes Emous; Nic J G M Veeger; Bart A van Wagensveld; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.129