Table 3

Feedback on theme 2: activity

Collated responses from Pilot sites and online free-text commentsOutcome
Theme 2:
activity
2.1 Programme
5 Standards
Suggestion to reword negatively worded standards (eg, ‘training in silos should be avoided’) to more positively worded guidance statements
Pilot sites provided evidence of how they were already achieving the standards outlined in the 2015 document.
Feedback regarded ‘a learning needs assessment of all stakeholders’ as too specific.
Concerns around the need to aim for higher levels of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation in SBE as a standard
Appropriate changes made. This was reflected in the number of those standards that were rated as high importance and the proportion of the standards in theme 2: activity that were retained.
Demonstration of the feasibility, relevance and utility of the standards
This was reflected in its importance rating and was changed to a guidance.
Acknowledged that this was aspirational at present and removed as a standard
Theme 2:
activity
2.2 Procedural skills
12 Standards
Comments relating to the statements being too specific to be standards and that most were equally applicable to other sections indicating a lack of need for a specific section on procedural skills
Conflicting feedback on the necessity for equipment used in simulation to be identical to that used in clinical practice
Agreement that ‘variations from clinical practice’ should be explained to learners, but felt to be too obvious to be a standard. Concerns around how it would be evidenced
None of the procedural standards achieved high enough score on the importance rating scale to be retained as standards. They were instead incorporated into the guidance sections.
Lower score on the importance rating and became a guidance only, along with the qualifier ‘where possible’
The standards relating to testing and maintenance moved to the technical personnel section but as guidance due to the presence of dual roles in some centres.
Theme 2:
activity
2.3 Assessment
4 Standards
Additional standards for summative assessment
7 Standards
Widespread agreement of importance of psychological safety for learners during assessment
Disagreement over what makes assessment faculty ‘appropriately trained’
The statement about faculty having ‘a responsibility of patient safety and must raise concerns regarding participant performance…’ was met with general agreement with certain respondents asked to whom these concerns should be raised.
Retained as a standard
Statement moved into guidance from being a standard
Appropriate response included in that this was dependent on the professional background of those involved and would be covered by existing professional regulators’ guidance.
Theme 2:
activity
2.4 In situ simulation (ISS)
11 Standards
Feedback highlighted inconsistent terminology and some overlap with standards in faculty section.The standards were reduced to 3 to offset duplication with a note to refer to relevant standards in the faculty section.
  • SBE, simulation-based education.