From implementation to revising simulation integration into undergraduate physiotherapy training
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Careful consideration of an increasingly underprepared tertiary student population, the limited use of simulation in South African (SA) healthcare education and a changing healthcare education milieu is required from SA educators when implementing, evaluating and revising simulation integration.
Objectives. To develop a conceptual framework for the integration of simulation in the SA undergraduate physiotherapy programme.
Methods. A non-experimental descriptive research design was used. A purposive sample of 15 healthcare educationalists from SA and abroad were approached to participate in a modified Delphi survey, informed by the results obtained from a systematic review identifying simulation integration framework elements. Data were analysed as percentages, with feedback provided to panel members following each round.
Results. Data saturation was achieved after round 3, with a response rate of 73.3% (n=11). The main findings suggested that student preparation prior to simulation-based learning experiences (SBLEs) should include orientation to SBLE logistics and expectations (73%), and could include informal assessment of theory (64%). Inclusion of the feedback/debriefing process (82%), methods (100%) and timing (85%) as part of student and educator preparation were also deemed essential. Panel members agreed that programme evaluation in line with stakeholder feedback (92%) is vital for guiding adjustments to the programme that is integrating simulation.
Conclusion. The developed conceptual framework indicates the necessity of student and educator preparation to ensure optimal SBLE participation and outcome achievement. Programme sustainability should be ensured through programme evaluation and adjustment, in line with stakeholder feedback, best practice and accrediting professional body guidelines.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The AJHPE is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
Jansen J. The future prospects of South African universities. Policy and funding options. Viewpoints No. 1, 2018.
https://www.cde.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Viewpoints-The-future-prospects-of-South-African-
Universities-Jonathan-Jansen.pdf (accessed 25 February 2021).
Lange L. 20 Years of higher education curriculum policy in South Africa. J Educ 2017(68):31-58. https://doi.
org/10.17159/2520-9868/i68a01
Spies C, Seale I, Botma Y. Adult learning: What nurse educators need to know about mature students. Curationis 2015;38(2):1494. https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v38i2.1494
Nestel D, Gough S. Designing simulation-based learning activities: A systematic approach. In: Nestel DM, Kelly B, Jolly B, Watson M, editors. Healthcare Simulation Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2018:135-142.
Association for Simulated Practice in Healthcare. Simulation-based education in healthcare: ASPiH standards framework and guidance. ASPiH, 2016. https://aspih.org.uk/standards-framework-for-sbe/ (accessed 25 February 2021).
Jeffries PR, Rogers B, Adamson K. NLN Jeffries Simulation Theory: Brief narrative description. Nurs Educ Perspect 2015;36(5):292-293. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-36.5.292
Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach 2013;35(10):e1511-e1530. https://doi.org/10.3109/014215 9X.2013.818632
INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of best practice: Simulation. Simulation design. Clin Simul Nurs 2016;12(Suppl):S5-S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.005
INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL Standards of best practice: Simulation. Debriefing. Clin Simul Nurs 2016;12(Suppl):S21–S25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.008
Swart R, Duys R, Hauser, ND. SASS: South African Simulation Survey – a review of simulation-based education. South Afr J Anaesth Analg 2019;25(4):12-20. http://www.sajaa.co.za/index.php/sajaa/article/view/2191 (accessed 25 February 2021).
Centre for Educational Testing for Access and Placement. The national benchmark tests national report: 2018 intake cycle. CETAP, 2018. https://nbt.ac.za/sites/default/files/NBTPReport_2018.pdf (accessed 25 February 2021).
Welman A, Spies C. High fidelity simulation in nursing education: Considerations for meaningful learning. Trends Nurs 2016;3(1):1. https://doi.org/10.14804/3-1-42
Van der Merwe A, Barnes RY, Labuschagne MJ. How to plan for simulation integration into undergraduate physiotherapy training. Afr J Health Prof Educ 2022;14(2):61-65. https://doi.org/10.7196/AJHPE.2022. v14i2.1446
Avella JR. Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. Int J Doct Stud 2016;11:305- 321. https://doi.org/10.28945/3561
Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, et al. Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT): Modified Delphi study. Phys Ther 2016;96(10):1514-1524. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150668
Zevin B, Levy JS, Satava RM, Grantcharov TP. A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation. J Am Coll Surgeons 2012;215(4):580-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jamcollsurg.2012.05.035
KhamisNN,SatavaRM,AlnassarSA,KernDE.Astepwisemodelforsimulation-basedcurriculumdevelopment for clinical skills, a modification of the six-step approach. Surg Endosc 2016;30(1):279-287. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00464-015-4206-x
Watkins SC, Roberts DA, Boulet JR, McEvoy MD, Weinger MB. Evaluation of a simpler tool to assess nontechnical skills during simulated critical events. Simul Healthc 2017;12(2):69-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/ SIH.0000000000000199
Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol 2000;55(5):469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Cheng A, Eppich W, Sawyer T, Grant V. Debriefing: The state of the art and science in healthcare simulation. In: Nestel DM, Kelly B, Jolly B, Watson M, editors. Healthcare Simulation Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2018:158-164.
Hussin AA. Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. Int J Educ Lit Stud 2018;6(3):92-98. https://doi. org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.92
Dorn RL. How reflection prompts impact critical thinking skills. Doctoral thesis. Tallahassee: Florida State University, 2014. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu%3A185235 (accessed 25 February 2021).
Sabus C, Macauley K. 2016. Simulation in physical therapy education and practice: Opportunities and
evidence-based instruction to achieve meaningful learning outcomes. J Phys Ther Educ 2016;30(1):3-13.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-201630010-00002
Unger M, Hanekom SD. Benefits of curriculum renewal: The Stellenbosch University physiotherapy experience. Afr J Health Prof Educ 2014;6(2)(Suppl 1):S222-S226. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajhpe/ article/view/113494 (accessed 25 February 2021).
Malamed C. Visual language for designers. Principles for creating graphics that people understand. Beverly: Rockport Publishers, 2011.