Download PDFPDF

Manifesto for healthcare simulation practice
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [].
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    The ethical imperative of psychological safety in healthcare. In response to the Manifesto for healthcare simulation practice.
    • Sharon Griswold, MD MPH, Professor of Emergency Medicine Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    • Other Contributors:
      • Toshiko Uchida, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Medical Education
      • S. Barry Issenberg, MD, Michael S. Gordon Professor of Medicine and Medical Education, Director of the Gordon Center for Research
      • Ivette Motola, MD, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Asst. Director of the Gordon Center for Simulation and Innovation in Medical Ed.
      • William C. McGaghie, PhD, Professor of Medical Education and Preventive Medicine
      • Michael A. Gisondi, MD, Associate Professor and Vice Chair of Education, Principal, The Precision Education and Assessment Research Lab
      • Amelia Lorenz, Standardized Patient
      • Jeffrey H. Barsuk, MD, MS, SFHM, Professor of Medicine and Medical Education

    We read the Park et al. Manifesto for healthcare simulation practice1 with great interest and present this commentary to prompt continued discussion.

    The effects of the pandemic are widespread throughout healthcare and health professions education. In the Manifesto, the authors implore simulationists to “adopt a commitment to comprehensive safety, to advocate collaboratively and to lead ethically.” They emphasize working remotely and fear that some simulationists’ “calls for safety are overlooked or even disregarded by their own institutions.” We emphatically agree that healthcare simulationists should inform clinical and educational leaders about safety, collaborative advocacy, and ethics during the current pandemic and in its aftermath.

    The article suggests that standardized patients (SPs) may not have an empowered voice to speak up if they feel unsafe in the learning environment and that SPs should have the same psychological safety as learners and patients. We agree with the authors that psychological safety for all simulationists, learners, and clinicians is imperative to the health and wellbeing of learners and patients.

    The Quadruple Aim of healthcare suggests a thriving, well-trained, and fulfilled workforce provides better care for patients.2 In this unusual time, there is an essential tension among the competing priorities of professional safety, service, duty, and satisfaction. We simulationists have spent decades demonstrating how rigo...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.