Fabrizio Bracco1,2, Michele Masini1,2, Donald Glowinski2,3, Tommaso Piccinno1,2, Simon Schaerlaeken3. 1. Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione (DISFOR), Department of Education Sciences, University of Genoa, 16126 Genova, Italy. 2. Valorizzazione, Innovazione, Empowerment (VIE SRL), Spinoff of the University of Genoa, 16126 Genova, Italy. 3. Neuroscience of Emotion and Affective Dynamics Lab (NEAD), Affiliated to the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences (SCAS), University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation is a useful method to improve learning and increase the safety of work operations, both for technical and non-technical skills. However, the observation, assessment, and feedback about these skills is particularly complex, because the process needs expert observers, and the feedback could be judgmental and ineffective. Therefore, a structured process to develop effective simulation scenarios and tools for the observation and feedback about performance is crucial. To this aim, in the present research, we developed a training model for electricity distribution workers, based on high fidelity simulation. METHODS: We designed simulation scenarios based on real cases, developed, and tested a set of observation and rating forms for the non-technical skills behavioral markers, and we tracked behaviors based on non-verbal cues (physiological and head orientation parameters). RESULTS: The training methodology proved to be highly appreciated by the participants and effective in fostering reflexivity. An in-depth analysis of physiological indexes and behaviors compliant to safety procedures revealed that breath rate and heart rate patterns commonly related with mindful and relaxed states were correlated with compliant behaviors, and patterns typical of stress and anxiety were correlated with non-compliant behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: a new training method based on high fidelity simulation, addressing both technical and non-technical skills is now available for fostering self-reflection and safety for electricity distribution workers. Future research should assess the long-term effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation for electricity workers, and should investigate non-invasive and real-time methods for tracking physiological parameters.
BACKGROUND: Simulation is a useful method to improve learning and increase the safety of work operations, both for technical and non-technical skills. However, the observation, assessment, and feedback about these skills is particularly complex, because the process needs expert observers, and the feedback could be judgmental and ineffective. Therefore, a structured process to develop effective simulation scenarios and tools for the observation and feedback about performance is crucial. To this aim, in the present research, we developed a training model for electricity distribution workers, based on high fidelity simulation. METHODS: We designed simulation scenarios based on real cases, developed, and tested a set of observation and rating forms for the non-technical skills behavioral markers, and we tracked behaviors based on non-verbal cues (physiological and head orientation parameters). RESULTS: The training methodology proved to be highly appreciated by the participants and effective in fostering reflexivity. An in-depth analysis of physiological indexes and behaviors compliant to safety procedures revealed that breath rate and heart rate patterns commonly related with mindful and relaxed states were correlated with compliant behaviors, and patterns typical of stress and anxiety were correlated with non-compliant behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: a new training method based on high fidelity simulation, addressing both technical and non-technical skills is now available for fostering self-reflection and safety for electricity distribution workers. Future research should assess the long-term effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation for electricity workers, and should investigate non-invasive and real-time methods for tracking physiological parameters.
Authors: Ross W May; Mandy Bamber; Gregory S Seibert; Marcos A Sanchez-Gonzalez; Joseph T Leonard; Rebecca A Salsbury; Frank D Fincham Journal: Stress Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.493
Authors: Helen Higham; Paul R Greig; John Rutherford; Laura Vincent; Duncan Young; Charles Vincent Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: David A Cook; Rose Hatala; Ryan Brydges; Benjamin Zendejas; Jason H Szostek; Amy T Wang; Patricia J Erwin; Stanley J Hamstra Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marco Giovanni Mariani; Michela Vignoli; Rita Chiesa; Francesco Saverio Violante; Dina Guglielmi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Magnus Andersson Hagiwara; Per Backlund; Hanna Maurin Söderholm; Lars Lundberg; Mikael Lebram; Henrik Engström Journal: Adv Simul (Lond) Date: 2016-05-23