Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Joint leap into a future of high-quality simulation research: standardising the reporting of simulation science
  1. Nick Sevdalis1,
  2. Debra Nestel2,
  3. Suzan Kardong-Edgren3,
  4. David M Gaba4
  1. 1Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, London, UK
  2. 2Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Robert Morris University Regional Research and Innovation in Simulation Education (RISE) Center
  4. 4Center for Immersive and Simulation-based Learning, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Nick Sevdalis, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, David Goldberg Centre, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK; nick.sevdalis{at}kcl.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Simulation has offered a practical means to train and rehearse clinical skills for many years. Simulated environments, patients and related technologies have been used to develop, validate and maintain a wide range of clinical skills, across numerous clinical specialties. In the past 30 years, the field has truly thrived—as evidenced in rapidly evolving simulation technologies; the ever increasing volume and quality of simulation-based scientific studies; the institution of numerous peer-reviewed outlets for the dissemination of these studies; the number of learned societies dedicated to promoting simulation and their expansive memberships; and the widespread development and availability of clinical educational resources, curricula and policies centred on application of simulation. Such simulation-based training applications and interventions within the health professions has been termed an ‘ethical imperative’1—whereby demonstrating proficiency on simulation-based tasks and procedures prior to performing them in a clinical environment on patients appears to be a trend gaining significant momentum.2–4

Clinical simulation science is thus past its early developmental stages. Evidence reviews and syntheses are taking stock of where the field is, and where it should be heading. From this perspective of a self-reflective science, the paper by Cheng et al5 on the extension of existing guidelines to encompass the reporting of simulation research5 is as valuable as it is timely. Cheng and his colleagues applied an elaborate consensus-building methodology using panels of international experts in the field. In successive stages, they reviewed the existing guidelines for applicability to simulation research and edited them accordingly. In addition to …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.