Background Graduates of simulation fellowship programmes are expected to have the ability to perform a variety of simulation specific skills at the time of graduation. Currently, simulation fellowship directors have access to tools to assess the ability of a fellow to debrief learners. However, there is no tool to assess a simulation fellow’s competency in technical skills. The purpose of our manuscript was to develop and obtain content validation of a novel instrument designed to assess a simulation fellow’s ability to perform the five core simulation technical skills.
Methods The study protocol was based on a methodology for content validation of curriculum consensus guidelines. This approach involves a three-step process, which includes the initial delineation of the curricular content. This was then followed by the validation of the curricular content using survey methodology and lastly obtaining consensus on modifications using Delphi methodology.
Results Two rounds of modified Delphi methodology were performed. Seventy-four respondents provided feedback on the round 1 survey and 45 respondents provided feedback on round 2. The final assessment tool has five elements and 16 subitems with four optional subitems.
Conclusion The Evaluation of Technical Competency in Healthcare Simulation tool provides an instrument developed from a national consensus of content experts. This tool provides simulation fellowship directors a method to evaluate fellows’ competency in technical skills.
- simulation fellowship
- simulation technician
- simulation fellowship assessment
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Patient consent for publication None declared.
Contributors PGH, SSA, MFB, MRJ and RAA all made substantial contributions to the design of the work, acquisition and interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content, final approval of the version to be published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy of any part of the work are appropriately investigated.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.