Simulation-based training (SBT) is often evaluated based on the transfer of specific knowledge and skills. In contrast, the degree to which reflective practice is inculcated by SBT is rarely considered. Because reflection is a pillar of adult learning theories, we sought to examine the degree to which participation in SBT was associated with increased reflective practice. Eighty-one healthcare professionals completed a survey which included the number of SBTs they participated in during the past 2 years, content-related and administrative-related features of those SBTs and a key aspect of reflective practice (ie, self-appraisal). The number of SBTs healthcare professionals participated in during the past 2 years was positively associated with reflective self-appraisal. This relationship was neither moderated by the inclusion of reflection components in SBTs nor by the voluntary/mandatory nature of participation in SBTs. Furthermore, the facilitator was ranked as the most important feature of the overall learning experience in SBTs. Also, no significant differences were found between the number of technical skills based and non-technical skills based SBTs. These findings demonstrate the importance of evaluating SBTs for facilitating reflective learning mindsets that healthcare practitioners can apply beyond the specific skills trained by SBTs.
- reflective practice
- simulation-based training
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All deidentified data relevant to the study are available upon request to the corresponding author (email: firstname.lastname@example.org).
Statistics from Altmetric.com
JAA and EMT contributed equally.
Contributors JAA and EMT made substantial contributions to the conception and design of work, analysis and drafting of the manuscript. SK made substantial contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data and critical revision of the manuscript. DD and LS made significant contributions to the acquisition of the data, interpretation of the analyses and critical revision. SP made significant contributions to the interpretation of the analyses and critical revision. All authors have approved the final version.
Funding The development of this manuscript was partially supported by the National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health under the award number UL1TR002649 to DD. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of NCATS.
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.