Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Auditing simulation practice against ASPiH standards: an experience for a district general hospital
  1. Dylan Angel1,
  2. Andrew Foster2,
  3. Pratik Solanki2
  1. 1 Medical education, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
  2. 2 Medical Education Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dylan Angel, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AT, UK; dangel93a{at}

Statistics from


Simulation enhanced learning (SEL) provides unique medical education by allowing the application of theory in a realistic environment.1 In 2016, the Association for Simulated Practice in Healthcare (ASPiH) developed 21 standards with corresponding guidance as a framework for centres to refer to during simulation design.2 In 2018, ASiPH announced an accreditation process for centres complying with their standards.3 ASPiH claim that through accreditation, facilities will benefit in terms of simulation quality assurance, organisational networking, formalisation of the simulation process and improved meeting of simulation stakeholders’ needs.4 Furthermore, patronage will serve as a marker of excellence and help secure funding and resources for the simulation department. Thus, we audited the simulation program at Princess Alexandra Hospital (PAH) National Health Service Trust to assess both adherence with these standards and the usefulness of the ASPiH standards as a method to improve the quality of SEL.


Currently, there is no validated tool to assess ASPiH standard compliance. Therefore, we developed an audit tool to assist with this process (online Supplementary appendix 1). To assess whether a standard had been achieved, we developed criteria using the corresponding recommendations present in the guidance document. Some standards, such as standard 6, ‘the patient’s perspective is considered …

View Full Text


  • Contributors DA designed the audit tool, collected data and wrote the manuscript. AF assisted in data collection. PS assisted in writing the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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.