Skip to main content
Download PDF

GENESISS 1—Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a scoping review and conceptual model

BMC Medical Education volume 22, Article number: 479 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In-Situ Simulation (ISS) enables teams to rehearse and review practice in the clinical environment to facilitate knowledge transition, reflection and safe learning. There is increasing use of ISS in healthcare organisations for which patient safety and quality improvement are key drivers. However, the effectiveness of ISS interventions has not yet been fully demonstrated and requires further study to maximise impact. Cohesive programmatic implementation is lacking and efforts to standardise ISS terms and concepts, strengthen the evidence base and develop an integrated model of learning is required. The aim of this study was to explore the current evidence, theories and concepts associated with ISS across all areas of healthcare and develop a conceptual model to inform future ISS research and best practice guidance.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken with stakeholder feedback to develop a conceptual model for ISS. Medline, OpenGrey and Web of Science were searched in September 2018 and updated in December 2020. Data from the included scoping review studies were analysed descriptively and organised into categories based on the different motivations, concepts and theoretical approaches for ISS. Categories and concepts were further refined through accessing stakeholder feedback.

Results

Thirty-eight papers were included in the scoping review. Papers reported the development and evaluation of ISS interventions. Stakeholder groups highlighted situations where ISS could be suitable to improve care and outcomes and identified contextual and practical factors for implementation. A conceptual model of ISS was developed which was organised into four themes: 1. To understand and explore why systematic events occur in complex settings; 2.To design and test new clinical spaces, equipment, information technologies and procedures; 3. To practice and develop capability in individual and team performance; 4. To assess competency in complex clinical settings.

Conclusions

ISS presents a promising approach to improve individual and team capabilities and system performance and address the ‘practice-theory gap’. However, there are limitations associated with ISS such as the impact on the clinical setting and service provision, the reliance of having an open learning culture and availability of relevant expertise. ISS should be introduced with due consideration of the specific objectives and learning needs it is proposed to address. Effectiveness of ISS has not yet been established and further research is required to evaluate and disseminate the findings of ISS interventions.

Peer Review reports

Background

In healthcare, scenario-based simulation increasingly involves multi-professional teams with the aim of enhancing the application of knowledge, embedding evidence-based practice and improving the performance of the team as a whole [1, 2]. In-situ simulation (ISS) enables teams to practice in the clinical environment where genuine care takes place, and has principally focused on low probability, high consequence events [3]. ISS may offer additional benefits to traditional ‘education-centre’ based simulation, enabling participants to problem solve within their own dynamic setting and facilitating the contextualised implementation of learning into practice [4, 5]. ISS can be a mechanism to explore the interplay between and within micro systems (individual, team and task factors) and macro level phenomena (hospital departments, facilities and systems; [6]), enabling latent safety threat (LST) detection leading to improvements in safety and performance [1, 7]. ISS models are relevant to various healthcare settings as they are flexible to different contexts [8]. There may also be economic benefits associated with ISS when compared to simulation training undertaken in dedicated simulation suites [4, 9]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ISS interventions have been used to test the ability of healthcare teams to effectively implement use of personal protective equipment (PPE), test infection control guidelines and operational readiness of intensive care units and operating rooms [10,11,12,13,14].

Haji et al. [15] developed a theory-based, iterative, programmatic framework for simulation interventions adapted from the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions [16]. Multiple theories were identified which are applicable to stages of simulation development: learning or instructional design theories for intervention development and modelling; cognitive and behavioural science where participant behaviour change or transfer of knowledge and skills is required; socio-cognitive theories for team based training; and implementation and complexity science to explore integration and contextual factors [15]. Although there is a paucity of conceptual, planning and evaluation frameworks which are solely focused on ISS, components of existing conceptual frameworks for general simulation training and existing literature reporting and evaluating ISS interventions may provide a useful starting point.

The National Simulation Development Project Report (The Higher Education Academy, Association for Simulated Practice in Healthcare (ASPiH) & Health Education England, 2014) identified that the use of ISS is increasing within the United Kingdom (UK) but requires more comprehensive and cohesive strategic and operational support to achieve the potential benefits offered. Efforts to standardise ISS terms and concepts and develop an integrated model of learning is required [2, 4, 17]. Previous reviews have focused on ISS for education and training of healthcare professionals [18], ISS in operating rooms [19], effect on patient outcomes [20] or have included ISS within a broader simulation approach within acute care settings [21], for caesarean section training [22] and obstetric emergency teams [23]. Reviews have highlighted a limited but promising evidence base for ISS and reported high variability of ISS approaches to design, delivery, and evaluation [18,19,20,21,22,23].

The aim of this study was to explore the current evidence, theories and concepts associated with ISS across all areas of healthcare and develop a conceptual model to inform future ISS research and best practice guidance.

Methods

This study involved three components:

  1. 1.

    A scoping review of the current literature relating to ISS

  2. 2.

    Consultation with stakeholders from clinical and health education organisations

  3. 3.

    Development of conceptual and logic models of ISS interventions

Component one: scoping review

We selected a scoping review as they are designed to explore the extent, range, and nature of the emerging evidence [24,25,26]. A scoping review would enable us to categorise the concepts and theoretical approaches for ISS in healthcare and develop theories about how distinctive mechanisms of ISS (‘natural teams in natural settings’) have the potential for addressing specific learning and clinical needs for the individual, team and various organisation levels. We conducted a scoping review of the published ISS literature following the framework by Levac et al. [27].

The scoping review aimed to address the following questions:

  • What types of ISS healthcare interventions have been evaluated and reported?

  • What were the reported objectives, design and outcomes reported in ISS studies?

Studies were included in they: 1) included any type of healthcare professionals and/or healthcare support workers as participants; 2) reported ISS interventions as part or whole of an intervention; 3) were conducted in any healthcare setting including primary or secondary care. The scoping search was limited to OECD countries. Studies which conducted simulation in laboratory, off site or training facilities, were solely focused on pre-registration or undergraduate participants were excluded.

A two-step search strategy was used, the initial search was conducted in September 2018 and updated on 10th December 2020. The search included papers published in the English language from inception to December 2020. Due to time restrictions, we limited the search to three database: Medline, OpenGrey (now archived in the DANS EASY data archive) and Web of Science.

Broad search terms were developed and refined by the study team [27] which included ‘simulation; drills; simulation training; patient simulation’ AND ‘in situ; clinical care; practice; real world; point of care; workplace’ (Additional file 1). Reference lists from all identified studies were reviewed for additional citations to enhance rigour of the approach. Searches and screening were completed by one reviewer (KE). Full text review was completed by KE and members of the study team. Agreement was reached through group discussion. The process of charting the data was conducted by two reviewers (KE, LB) from included papers using a standardised data extraction form to record characteristics of the included studies and the key information relevant to the review question [28].

Data were analysed using a descriptive approach, summarising the data and study characteristics. Data were then organised into categories based around the different motivations, concepts and theoretical approaches for ISS as identified in previous reviews [27, 29]. This was an iterative process completed through discussion with the project team and further refined through the stakeholder engagement.

Guidelines: The scoping review was conducted following the methods described by Levac et al. [27]. The protocol development and scoping review reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [29].

Component two stakeholder engagement

Levac et al. [27] recommend incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology. We sought expert feedback on the preliminary scoping review findings to build on the evidence and offer a higher level of meaning, content expertise, and perspective to inform the conceptual model [27, 30]. An ISS workshop was held at the Association of Simulated Practice in Healthcare (ASPIH) national conference (2018). As part of the workshop, attendees were presented with the preliminary study findings. A ‘World Café’ method [31, 32] with four × 10 min small group discussions which focused on the ISS categories identified from the preliminary findings. Participants were presented with a series of questions What are the benefits (if any) of ISS over other methods?

  • What type of enquiry is more suited to ISS and why?

  • What type of ISS design should be used for different types of enquiry?

  • How can ISS support psychological safety of participants?

Data from flipcharts, posters and facilitators field notes, were transcribed and summarised.

Attendees from higher education and healthcare provider institutions including multi-professional clinical and managerial staff groups attended the workshop.

Component three: developing a conceptual model of ISS ion healthcare settings.

Data from the scoping search findings, stakeholder discussion and debate were synthesised and developed into a conceptual model of the concepts and theories associated with ISS in healthcare settings to address specific contextual needs. Logic models were then developed to identify short, medium and long-term outcomes that are linked to the key activities of ISS mechanisms [33].

Results

The results of the three components will now be presented.

Component one: scoping review

The search identified 4237 papers which were assessed for eligibility via title and abstract. Eighty papers were retrieved for full text assessment, following discussion and agreement with the review team, 3 reviews and 35 studies were selected for inclusion (Fig. 1, Additional file 2). Papers were from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and the US and publication dates ranged from 2008 to 2018.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram – Papers describing ISS interventions in healthcare settings

Full size image

Systematic reviews of ISS interventions

An umbrella review of simulation-based training for nursing education and practice [34] included one paper focused on ISS [35]. ISS was found to foster improved competencies related to patient safety and collaborative practice such as interdisciplinary communication and teamwork, as well as identifying and correcting actual clinical safety issues. Rosen et al. [18] conducted a systematic review of ISS interventions that included 29 papers which were focused mainly on surgical or maternity care. Most studies were rated as low quality. Approaches to design, delivery, and evaluation of ISS were highly variable across studies. Formal needs analysis was rarely used to develop simulations, there was little evidence of formal training or performance management for facilitators and few programmes reported meaningful evaluations of programme effectiveness. However, a positive impact of ISS on learning and organisational performance was demonstrated in a small number of studies. Owei et al. [19] conducted a systematic review of operating room ISS which included 19 papers, describing its application for a variety of purposes and in a variety of settings, all premised on the potential to offer unique advantages over other types of simulation. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ISS to off-site simulation found few significant differences. One large-scale outcome study showed improved perinatal outcomes in obstetric care. The authors concluded that although ISS theoretically offers certain advantages over other types of simulation, especially in addressing system-wide or environmental threats, its efficacy has yet to be reliably demonstrated.

Characteristics of studies reporting ISS interventions

The remaining papers reported ISS interventions conducted in maternity care settings, paediatrics, neonatal, trauma and emergency departments, resuscitation response teams, nursing, mental health and primary care settings. Papers reported various methods for evaluating ISS interventions including: RCTs, surveys, focus groups, cohort studies, observation (pre and post intervention studies) and clinical audit. Papers reported ISS interventions lasting from 15 min to 12 h, describing exercises that were announced and unannounced, and providing single or repetitive ISS sessions. Most papers reported that ISS had been developed by clinical educators and senior clinical staff. Various frameworks for designing, conducting and evaluating ISS were utilised, including systems science models, such as the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model [36], and improvement science models such as the ‘plan, do, study, act’ (PDSA) cycle [37].

Studies aimed to evaluate ISS on various outcomes (Table 1), including:

Table 1 Objectives and outcome measures of the studies in the scoping review
Full size table

Component two: stakeholder workshops

The stakeholder group indicated formative rather than summative ISS assessments have the potential to improve learning and encourage Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) to identity their own training needs. Formal teaching and traditional simulation assessment programmes often fail to prepare staff for the ‘real world’ and ISS may help apply learning and reduce the theory-to-practice gap. However there are no robust strategies or non-technical skills standards to assess behaviours, attitudes and communication in changing complex and dynamic settings. It would be very difficult if not impossible to present all participants with equal opportunities to demonstrate their skills during ISS. It was suggested that ISS assessment interventions should:

  • aim for realism rather than hyper realism; attempts to exaggerate or exacerbate scenarios should be avoided.

  • have clear learning objectives; the object of assessment (i.e. individual, team and/or system) should be defined as each requires a different approach and assessment technique.

  • have objectives informed by training needs analyses which form part of an integrated curricula employing numerous learning and assessment approaches. The ‘gaps’ in learning which ISS can address should be clearly identified.

  • ensure information including learning resources is standardised and available for staff to access prior to ISS implementation.

  • ensure ISS is conducted within supportive learning cultures which have well defined supportive and training packages.

  • provide facilitators with specialist training including peer assessment.

  • ensure ISS interventions involve creative planning to avoid being continually cancelled in busy departments; consider alternative setting such as staff areas and social spaces.

Stakeholders suggested that ISS has potential to complement traditional investigation approaches but that not all clinical incidents were thought to be appropriate for ISS exploration. Comments provided during the workshop were formed into a series of questions to help HCPs and healthcare educators decide if ISS is an appropriate intervention to aid in the investigation of clinical incidents with a view to foster deeper learning of the factors involved and how these might be mitigated in future (Additional file 3).

Component three: developing a conceptual model of ISS in healthcare settings.

The scoping review findings and stakeholder feedback identified various principles, theories and approaches for ISS in healthcare settings (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

In-situ simulation principles, theories and approaches used in healthcare settings

Full size image

Four distinct concepts were identified (Table 2, Fig. 3):

  • ISS to understand why errors have occurred

  • ISS to design and testing new equipment, spaces, pathways, systems and procedures

  • ISS to practice skills and develop competency

  • ISS to assess, evaluate and improve performance

Table 2 Functions of in-situ simulation in healthcare
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Conceptual model of ISS for healthcare settings

Full size image

Discussion

The four concepts of ISS are presented alongside logic models (Figs. 4 and 5) with discussion of how each ISS approach may be developed to address specific contextual needs.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Logic model: Design ISS

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Logic model: Practice ISS

Full size image

In-situ simulation: understand why events have occurred

Learning from adverse incidents should move beyond attributing cause wholly to human failings and more towards investigating the role of the system in which humans operate [69,70,71]. Root cause analysis (RCA) investigations promote a systematic approach to investigating serious incidents, although RCA may impede organisational learning as it can restrict explanation to single causes and is often over reliant on individual testimonies or medical notes [72]. Alternative ways of capturing less reductive incident ‘stories’ can encourage reflection and wider organisational learning, considering the interaction between a range of systemic factors which contribute to incidents. ISS may provide a useful mechanism for such inquiry, assisting clinicians to discover potential interacting components and identify additional LSTs [65, 73,74,75].

As part of a wider approach which aims to encourage healthcare organisations to progress from a ‘blame culture’ to a just, learning culture [71], embedding simulation activities underpinned by Human Factors principles can help to focus on the organisational, procedural and contextual influences on clinical reasoning and actions. Participants of ISS interventions should be encouraged to observe, reflect, ask questions, raise concerns, challenge practices and clarify actions while taking context and complexity into account.

Patient involvement in the design and delivery of simulation training enables the patients’ experience to be expressed and considered. Many ISS scenarios have been developed to reflect ‘real life’ risks drawn from patterns in care, sentinel events, or concern from advocacy groups. However it maybe be possible to work in collaboration families involved in a serious incident to help facilitate learning opportunities and disseminate the findings [73]. This would involve careful attention to local sensitivity; where harm has occurred this of course may be distressing for staff, patients and families involved (particularly where organisations have a culture of appropriating blame and censure). The acceptability of co-designed ‘reconstruction’ via ISS scenarios from care histories should always assess the potential effect on patients and staff involved.

In-situ simulation: design and testing

Tools of safety and complexity science such as Discrete Event Simulation [76], Cognitive Task Analysis [77] and general system thinking models have been used to design ISS interventions to enhance patient flow, improve the design of clinical spaces, and identify LSTs within new emergency and obstetric departments. For example, Bender [6] scripted commonly encountered clinical scenarios to explore the functioning of a new perinatal facility. Scenarios challenged participants to test the new facilities under stressful conditions, focusing on identifying LSTs and making improvements which were more readily adopted into practice as they were driven the clinical teams. Medwid et al. [64] used ISS to test a new emergency department; numerous LSTs were identified and addressed prior to the department opening. ISS facilitated deliberate practice within the new space and helped orientate staff to the new facility. ISS has also been reported to assist the development and testing of new clinical services and procedures for cardiac services [66] and stroke thrombolysis pathways [78]. The MHRA guidance for medical devices [79] highlights that usability testing with representative users in a simulated environment or the actual environment of use can help identify which device features people find easy to use and which cause problems, thus determining whether the device is susceptible to user errors that could cause harm.

Design-driven improvement is a core Human Factors principle which can benefit healthcare organisations [80, 81]. The performance of a process is the emergent property of the whole interacting system which is complex, dynamic and situation specific [82, 83]. The ability to experiment and see what occurs through interactions, attunement and disturbances enables participants to question how things might be done differently, try out various options and consider possible unintended outcomes [84]. ISS can be designed to test the synergy or dissonance between micro and macro factors: task factors, organisational factors, internal environments and external environments [81]. The logic model proposed in Fig. 4 has been developed with reference to the current literature and approaches to ISS design and testing interventions. The model highlights the mechanisms of ISS which would be potentially amenable to standardised approach.

In-situ simulation: practice, developing capability and resilience

Organisational resilience is focused on understanding how healthcare organisations can deliver standardised, replicable and predictable services while embracing inherent variations, disruptions and unexpected events [85]. This involves designing, testing and improving the organisational systems that support rapid and adaptive responses to emergency situations. Deficiencies and LSTs in current systems can be identified and addressed through ISS activities as they enable a systematic examination to provide a realistic picture of work, contextualised in real time and place [7, 55, 62, 86]. ISS scenarios can also support HCPs to develop non-technical skills: task management; teamwork; situation awareness; problem-solving; and decision-making, while testing and probing real-world organisational systems [4, 43, 85, 87,88,89]. ISS to assist teams prepare, rehearse and practice for low frequency, high impact events was the most reported ISS activity included in the review and was often underpinned by a combination of established learning theories (Fig. 5).

Behavioural learning

Skills are developed through repetition. Learning and behaviour change occurs through feedback from the simulation activity, interaction between the task, environment, and the team. ISS provides opportunity for teams to identify solutions and take action to introduce and reinforce changes [90]. Video playback can support behavioural learning alongside a discussion of strategies, alternative approaches, personal experiences and emotional aspects. Teams and individuals can be supported to identify gaps in knowledge, challenge current procedures and identify and address system weaknesses.

Cognitive learning

Preconceptions are explored, and new or unexpected events are presented via the simulation activity to challenge precognitions [91]. Questioning and reflection help participants acquire deeper understanding, develop problem solving skills and new insights [92]. ISS enables learning from making mistakes in a way that would be inconceivable with actual patients; ‘thinking aloud’ helps participants reflect on why they took a particular course of action and present an opportunity to correct their actions [84, 93, 94]. ISS activities should provide a concrete experience, debrief with reflexive observation and conceptualisation, ideally followed by a second scenario for active experimentation [95]. Knowledge transfer is optimal when the learning environment matches the environment in which it will be applied [93]. ISS can help develop and maintain situational awareness [96], for example, awareness of vital signs, medication requirements, actions of other team members and equipment function. Comprehension of a current situation based on these elements, understanding their significance within the environment, and forming a holistic picture helps anticipate future actions and consequences [97].

Social learning

Learning through observing others and developing a shared understanding of roles and processes within a team which result in the desired outcomes. ISS enables interdisciplinary team practice while maintaining interaction with the environmental and system factors present during actual patient care events [39]. Individuals and teams explore the social processes involved in building shared expectations, establishing patterns of collective working and building trust between multidisciplinary teams [85]. An open and safe context encourages professionals from different backgrounds to acknowledge their strengths and address their weaknesses in a respectful and trustful manner [8, 85].

In-situ simulation: assess, evaluate and improve performance

Assessing competency through simulation is well established in the military, nuclear and aviation industries and is used in healthcare to assess clinical competency via objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE). Brunette and Thibodeau-Jarry [93] suggest that simulation, through the application of mastery learning theory can be used to formatively assess competency in clinical environments. Learners are required to achieve a level of mastery in particular essential skills and knowledge before progressing onto new or more advanced practice. Learners progress at their own pace and are provided with opportunities for deliberate practice via simulation. Again, ISS enables participants to operate and be assessed in a familiar work environment [59].

Miller’s pyramid for assessing clinical competence distinguishes between four different levels of competence: knows; knows how; shows how; and does. The level ‘does’ is described as the most accurate way to assess competence in actual clinical practice [98]. However, assessment in actual clinical practice has the potential to distress patients and can be problematic in terms of controlling variables such as task difficulty [59]. Sørensen et al. [99] stress the difference between simulation-based training and simulation-based assessment (SBA). In SBA, participants need to be well informed about the proposed activity and know what will be expected of them [87]. Careful attention needs to be paid to creating a safe learning environment. Validated metrics and standards need to be developed for individuals and teams. Strategies to assess non-technical skills during ISS have been developed for medical students, obstetrics and anaesthesiology and could be refined and adopted for other clinical specialties [100,101,102].

Griswold et al. [103] identify that for clinical procedures with clear chains of action and well-defined processes and standards, summative assessment via ISS is much simpler than in more “dynamic, multifactorial practices in which cognitive, procedural, and communication skills are simultaneously applied in a team environment” (Griswold et al. 2018, page 170). Measurement methods for assessing competencies involved in complex care processes are less well-defined, and further complicated when individual performance needs to be isolated from the wider team. Concepts such as ‘effective communication’ are subject to interpretation, and clinical outcomes may be attributed to concepts such as teamwork and coordination in addition to individual clinical skills and knowledge [103]. Criterion standards and benchmarks of quality performance need to be defined to reliably and accurately capture the individual performance which is linked to relevant outcomes. Strategies to define and control for difference in skill mix, staffing and capacity pressures are also required.

Simulation for training has been reported as effective when instructional features, such as the event-based approach to training (EBAT) are embedded within the simulation [104]. EBAT has been used in aviation and military environments and relies on the “a priori” embedding of multiple events into the scenario at different time intervals. These events are designed to enable participants to exhibit competencies and measure performance. Scenario development can be facilitated by performing a Cognitive Task Analysis to identify the cues expected to be used to perform complex tasks [104]. Data collection should capture ‘moment-to moment’ actions and behaviours to identify how performance can be improved.

Limitations

The scoping review sought to identify and categorise ISS approaches within a wide range of healthcare settings, however only three databases were searched. Selection and screening were completed by a single reviewer (KE) and the review protocol was not registered. The included studies were conducted across thirteen countries and the cultural context in which ISS was conducted was not explored within the review. Stakeholder feedback which were used to further inform the development of the conceptual model may not represent the whole picture of the concepts and mechanisms of ISS being conducted in healthcare and health education settings. However, we consider that the scoping review and conceptual model have highlighted key characteristics related to ISS and thus provided a useful starting point to develop more specific questions to addressed by a systematic review or primary research.

Conclusions

This paper provides an overview of the application of the use of ISS in healthcare settings. The recent literature highlights the heterogeneity in ISS objectives and the complex delivery landscape which has resulted in a lack of an integrated ISS approach across healthcare organisations. Most reported ISS interventions provide little evidence of formal development processes and lack validated outcome measures. ISS in healthcare is often underpinned by Human Factors (HF) principles which overlap and synergise with other approaches, methods and theories including non-technical skills development, quality improvement (QI) methods, and systems modelling. Many existing models and frameworks exist within a wide ISS curriculum as part of a general approach to simulation training. This can result in a lack of clear guidance to inform ISS designs. A conceptual model has been provided to inform discussion and debate about the objectives, feasibility and usefulness of ISS interventions to guide clinicians and educators. We have set out the learning mechanisms intrinsic within ISS and suggest the context in which these mechanisms can be actualised. We have highlighted the potential for ISS to improve the design of clinical spaces and equipment, develop team performance and healthcare systems resilience, and support clinical investigation and competency assessment. An ISS approach presents distinctive advantages to explore and improve clinical team and organisational functioning. In addition, the ability to address the practice-theory gap makes ISS an attractive approach for educators, managers and policymakers as part of quality and safety improvement strategies. However there are limitations associated with ISS, such as the impact on the clinical setting, the provision of an open learning culture and availability of relevant expertise. We strongly recommend that ISS is not introduced without due consideration of the specific objectives and learning needs it is proposed to address. Effectiveness of ISS has not yet been established and further research is required to assess the specific effect of particular ISS designs on clinical outcomes, learning outcomes, team performance, non-technical skill development, acceptability and perceived benefit. We encourage researchers, clinicians and educators to work collaboratively to rigorously design, develop, evaluate ISS interventions and disseminate the findings to further inform the evidence base. We recommend future systematic reviews are conducted to assess ISS intervention effectiveness to guide clinicians, researchers and educators to develop effective ISS interventions and provide useful guidance as they continue to address various clinical concerns by ISS interventions in dynamic settings.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

References

  1. Guise J-M, Mladenovic J. In situ simulation: Identification of systems issues. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(3):161–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pucher P, Tamblyn R, Boorman D, Dixon-Woods M, Donaldson L, Draycott T, Forster A, Nadkarni V, Power C, Sevdalis N, et al. Simulation research to enhance patient safety and outcomes: recommendations of the simnovate patient safety domain group. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2017;3:S3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kurup V, Matei V, Ray J. Role of in-situ simulation for training in healthcare. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology. 2017;30(6):755–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000514.

  4. Kelsey NC, Claus S. Embedded, in situ simulation improves ability to rescue. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12(11):522–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavelle M, Attoe C, Tritschler C, Cross S. Managing medical emergencies in mental health settings using an interprofessional in-situ simulation training programme: a mixed methods evaluation study. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;59:103–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bender GJ. In situ simulation for systems testing in newly constructed perinatal facilities. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35(2):80–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Knight P, MacGloin H, Lane M, Lofton L, Desai A, Haxby E, Macrae D, Korb C, Mortimer P, Burmester M. Mitigating Latent Threats Identified through an Embedded In Situ Simulation Program and Their Comparison to Patient Safety Incidents: A Retrospective Review. Front Pediatr. 2018;5(281). https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00281.

  8. Brandstorp H, Halvorsen PA, Sterud B, Haugland B, Kirkengen AL. Primary care emergency team training in situ means learning in real context. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016;34:295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fan M, Petrosoniak A, Pinkney S, Hicks C, White K, Almeida APSS, Campbell D, McGowan M, Gray A, Trbovich P. Study protocol for a framework analysis using video review to identify latent safety threats: trauma resuscitation using in situ simulation team training (TRUST). BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi GYS, Wan WTP, Chan AKM, Tong SK, Poon ST, Joynt GM. Preparedness for COVID-19: in situ simulation to enhance infection control systems in the intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(2):e236–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fregene TE, Nadarajah P, Buckley JF, Bigham S, Nangalia V. Use of in situ simulation to evaluate the operational readiness of a high-consequence infectious disease intensive care unit. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(6):733–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dharamsi A, Hayman K, Yi S, Chow R, Yee C, Gaylord E, Tawadrous D, Chartier LB, Landes M. Enhancing departmental preparedness for COVID-19 using rapid-cycle in-situ simulation. J Hosp Infect. 2020;105(4):604–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lie SA, Wong LT, Chee M, Chong SY. Process-Oriented In Situ Simulation Is a Valuable Tool to Rapidly Ensure Operating Room Preparedness for COVID-19 Outbreak. Simul Healthc. 2020;15(4):225–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000478.

  14. Muret-Wagstaff SL, Collins JS, Mashman DL, Patel SG, Pettorini K, Rosen SA, Shaffer VO, Sumler ML, Sweeney JF, Sharma J. In Situ simulation enables operating room agility in the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Surg. 2020;272(2):e148–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haji FA, Da Silva C, Daigle DT, Dubrowski A. From bricks to buildings: adapting the Medical Research Council framework to develop programs of research in simulation education and training for the health professions. Simul Healthc. 2014;9(4):249–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337: a1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Posner GD, Clark ML, Grant VJ. Simulation in the clinical setting: towards a standard lexicon. Adv Simul. 2017;2(1):15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosen MA, Hunt EA, Pronovost PJ, Federowicz MA, Weaver SJ. In situ simulation in continuing education for the health care professions: a systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012;32(4):243–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Owei L, Neylan CJ, Rao R, Caskey RC, Morris JB, Sensenig R, Brooks AD, Dempsey DT, Williams NN, Atkins JH, et al. In situ operating room-based simulation: a review. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(4):579–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldshtein D, Krensky C, Doshi S, Perelman VS. In situ simulation and its effects on patient outcomes: a systematic review. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2020;6(1):3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Armenia S, Thangamathesvaran L, Caine AD, King N, Kunac A, Merchant AM. The role of high-fidelity team-based simulation in acute care settings: a systematic review. Surg J (N Y). 2018;4(3):e136–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zetner DB, Petersen I, Konge L, Thinggaard E. Training cesarean section: a scoping review. Simul Healthc. 2019;14(4):264–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brogaard L, Glerup Lauridsen K, Løfgren B, Krogh K, Paltved C, Boie S, Hvidman L. The effects of obstetric emergency team training on patient outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(1):25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Maggio LA, Larsen K, Thomas A, Costello JA, Artino AR Jr. Scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2021;55(6):689–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

  28. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.

  29. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

  30. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

  31. Schiele H, Krummaker S, Hoffmann P, Kowalski R. The “research world café” as method of scientific enquiry: Combining rigor with relevance and speed. J Bus Res. 2022;140:280–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Broom M, Brady B, Kecskes Z, Kildea S. World Café Methodology engages stakeholders in designing a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit J Neonatal Nurs. 2013;19(5):253–58. ISSN 1355-1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnn.2012.12.002.

  33. Using logic models in evaluation [https://www.strategyunitwm.nhs.uk/publications/using-logic-models-evaluation]

  34. Cantrell MA, Franklin A, Leighton K, Carlson A. The evidence in simulation-based learning experiences in nursing education and practice: an umbrella review. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(12):634–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Villemure C, Tanoubi I, Georgescu LM, Dubé JN, Houle J. An integrative review of in situ simulation training: Implications for critical care nurses. Can J Crit Care Nurs. 2016;27(1):22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Barbeito A, Bonifacio A, Holtschneider M, Segall N, Schroeder R, Mark J. In situ simulated cardiac arrest exercises to detect system vulnerabilities. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(3):154–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Deming WE. Out of the crisis, 1986. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study xiii; 1991:507.

  38. Ben-Ari M, Chayen G, Steiner IP, Schinasi DA, Feldman O, Shavit I. The effect of in situ simulation training on the performance of tasks related to patient safety during sedation. J Anesth. 2018;32(2):300–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fialkow MF, Adams CR, Carranza L, Golden SJ, Benedetti TJ, Fernandez R. An in situ standardized patient-based simulation to train postpartum hemorrhage and team skills on a labor and delivery unit. Simul Healthc. 2014;9(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Herbers MD, Heaser JA. Implementing an in situ mock code quality improvement program. Am J Crit Care. 2016;25(5):393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jung D, Carman M, Aga R, Burnett A. Disaster preparedness in the emergency department using in situ simulation. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2016;38(1):56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kurosawa H, Ikeyama T, Achuff P, Perkel M, Watson C, Monachino A, Remy D, Deutsch E, Buchanan N, Anderson J, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of in situ pediatric advanced life support recertification (“pediatric advanced life support reconstructed”) compared with standard pediatric advanced life support recertification for ICU frontline providers*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(3):610–8.

  43. Rubio-Gurung S, Putet G, Touzet S, Gauthier-Moulinier H, Jordan I, Beissel A, Labaune JM, Blanc S, Amamra N, Balandras C, et al. In situ simulation training for neonatal resuscitation: an RCT. Pediatrics. 2014;134(3):e790-797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Siegel NA, Kobayashi L, Dunbar-Viveiros JA, Devine J, Al-Rasheed RS, Gardiner FG, Olsson K, Lai S, Jones MS, Dannecker M, et al. In situ medical simulation investigation of emergency department procedural sedation with randomized trial of experimental bedside clinical process guidance intervention. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(3):146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sørensen JL, Lottrup P, van der Vleuten C, Andersen KS, Simonsen M, Emmersen P, Rosthøj S, Ottesen B. Unannounced in situ simulation of obstetric emergencies: staff perceptions and organisational impact. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90(1069):622–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Marshall NE, Vanderhoeven J, Eden KB, Segel SY, Guise JM. Impact of simulation and team training on postpartum hemorrhage management in non-academic centers. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(5):495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yager P, Collins C, Blais C, O’Connor K, Donovan P, Martinez M, Cummings B, Hartnick C, Noviski N. Quality improvement utilizing in-situ simulation for a dual-hospital pediatric code response team. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;88:42–6.

  48. Amiel I, Simon D, Merin O, Ziv A. Mobile in situ simulation as a tool for evaluation and improvement of trauma treatment in the emergency department. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(1):121–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Härgestam M, Lindkvist M, Jacobsson M, Brulin C, Hultin M. Trauma teams and time to early management during in situ trauma team training. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Patterson MD, Geis GL, Falcone RA, LeMaster T, Wears RL. In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(6):468–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zimmermann K, Holzinger IB, Ganassi L, Esslinger P, Pilgrim S, Allen M, Burmester M, Stocker M. Inter-professional in-situ simulated team and resuscitation training for patient safety: description and impact of a programmatic approach. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:189–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Geis GL, Pio B, Pendergrass TL, Moyer MR, Patterson MD. Simulation to assess the safety of new healthcare teams and new facilities. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(3):125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gibbs K, DeMaria S, McKinsey S, Fede A, Harrington A, Hutchison D, Torchen C, Levine A, Goldberg A. A novel in situ simulation intervention used to mitigate an outbreak of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Pediatr. 2018;194:22-27.e25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kobayashi L, Dunbar-Viveiros JA, Devine J, Jones MS, Overly FL, Gosbee JW, Jay GD. Pilot-phase findings from high-fidelity In Situ medical simulation investigation of emergency department procedural sedation. Simul Healthc. 2012;7(2):81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Leary F, McGarvey K, Christoff A, Major J, Lockie F, Chayen G, Vassiliadis J, Wharton S. Identifying incidents of suboptimal care during paediatric emergencies-an observational study utilising in situ and simulation centre scenarios. Resuscitation. 2014;85(3):431–6.

  56. Theilen U, Fraser L, Jones P, Leonard P, Simpson D. Regular in-situ simulation training of paediatric Medical Emergency Team leads to sustained improvements in hospital response to deteriorating patients, improved outcomes in intensive care and financial savings. Resuscitation. 2017;115:61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lutgendorf MA, Spalding C, Drake E, Spence D, Heaton JO, Morocco KV. Multidisciplinary in situ simulation-based training as a postpartum hemorrhage quality improvement project. Mil Med. 2017;182(3):e1762–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Knight LJ, Gabhart JM, Earnest KS, Leong KM, Anglemyer A, Franzon D. Improving code team performance and survival outcomes: implementation of pediatric resuscitation team training. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(2):243–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gundrosen S, Solligård E, Aadahl P. Team competence among nurses in an intensive care unit: the feasibility of in situ simulation and assessing non-technical skills. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30(6):312–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Miller D, Crandall C, Washington C 3rd, McLaughlin S. Improving teamwork and communication in trauma care through in situ simulations. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(5):608–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sørensen JL, van der Vleuten C, Rosthøj S, Østergaard D, LeBlanc V, Johansen M, Ekelund K, Starkopf L, Lindschou J, Gluud C, et al. Simulation-based multiprofessional obstetric anaesthesia training conducted in situ versus off-site leads to similar individual and team outcomes: a randomised educational trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wheeler DS, Geis G, Mack EH, LeMaster T, Patterson MD. High-reliability emergency response teams in the hospital: improving quality and safety using in situ simulation training. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(6):507–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ventre KM, Barry JS, Davis D, Baiamonte VL, Wentworth AC, Pietras M, Coughlin L, Barley G. Using in situ simulation to evaluate operational readiness of a children’s hospital-based obstetrics unit. Simul Healthc. 2014;9(2):102–11.

  64. Medwid K, Smith S, Gang M. Use of in-situ simulation to investigate latent safety threats prior to opening a new emergency department. Safety Sci. 2015;77:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yajamanyam PK, Sohi D. In situ simulation as a quality improvement initiative. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2015;100(3):162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen PP, Tsui NT, Fung AS, Chiu AH, Wong WC, Leong HT, Lee PS, Lau JY. In-situ medical simulation for pre-implementation testing of clinical service in a regional hospital in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2017;23(4):404–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kobayashi L, Dunbar-Viveiros JA, Sheahan BA, Rezendes MH, Devine J, Cooper MR, Martin PB, Jay GD. In situ simulation comparing in-hospital first responder sudden cardiac arrest resuscitation using semiautomated defibrillators and automated external defibrillators. Simul Healthc. 2010;5(2):82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kobayashi L, Parchuri R, Gardiner FG, Paolucci GA, Tomaselli NM, Al-Rasheed RS, Bertsch KS, Devine J, Boss RM, Gibbs FJ, et al. Use of in situ simulation and human factors engineering to assess and improve emergency department clinical systems for timely telemetry-based detection of life-threatening arrhythmias. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(1):72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wallace B, Ross A. Beyond Human Error. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Leveson N, Samost A, Dekker S, Finkelstein S, Raman J. A systems approach to analyzing and preventing hospital adverse events. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(2):162–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Vosper H, Hignett S, Bowie P. Twelve tips for embedding human factors and ergonomics principles in healthcare education. Med Teach. 2018;40(4):357–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Waterson P, Catchpole K. Human factors in healthcare: welcome progress, but still scratching the surface. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(7):480–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Commission on Education and Training for Patient Safety. Improving Safety Through Education and Training.  London: Health Education England; 2016. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20safety%20through%20education%20and%20training.pdf.

  74. Simms ER, Slakey DP, Garstka ME, Tersigni SA, Korndorffer JR. Can simulation improve the traditional method of root cause analysis: a preliminary investigation. Surgery. 2012;152(3):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Slakey DP, Simms ER, Rennie KV, Garstka ME, Korndorffer JR Jr. Using simulation to improve root cause analysis of adverse surgical outcomes. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):144–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Zhang X. Application of discrete event simulation in health care: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Potworowski G, Green L. Cognitive Task Analysis: Methods to Improve Patient-Centered Medical Home Models by Understanding and Leveraging its Knowledge Work. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Combes J. 0121 Sequence simulation ‘the hyper acute stroke thrombolysis pathway. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning. 2015;1.

  79. Medicinies and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Human Factors and Usability Engineering – Guidance for Medical Devices Including Drug-device Combination Products. London: Medicinies and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, Carayon P, Falzon P, Marras WS, Wilson JR, van der Doelen B. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics. 2012;55(4):377–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Ozok AA, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics. 2013;56(11):1669–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Dekker SWA, Breakey H. ‘Just culture:’ Improving safety by achieving substantive, procedural and restorative justice. Saf Sci. 2016;85:187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wilson JR. Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(1):5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lefroy J, Yardley S. Embracing complexity theory can clarify best practice frameworks for simulation education. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):344–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Macrae C, Draycott T. Delivering high reliability in maternity care: In situ simulation as a source of organisational resilience. Safety Sci. 2016;117:490–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Zimmermann K, Holzinger IB, Ganassi L, Esslinger P, Pilgrim S, Allen M, Burmester M, Stocker M. Inter-professional in-situ simulated team and resuscitation training for patient safety: description and impact of a programmatic approach. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15(1):189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Boet S, Bould MD, Fung L, Qosa H, Perrier L, Tavares W, Reeves S, Tricco AC. Transfer of learning and patient outcome in simulated crisis resource management: a systematic review. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(6):571–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Gibbs K, DeMaria S, McKinsey S, Fede A, Harrington A, Hutchison D, Torchen C, Levine A, Goldberg A. A novel in situ simulation intervention used to mitigate an outbreak of methicillin-resistant <em>staphylococcus aureus</em> in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Pediatr. 2018;194:22-27.e25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Murphy M, Curtis K, McCloughen A. What is the impact of multidisciplinary team simulation training on team performance and efficiency of patient care? An integrative review. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2016;19(1):44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Ross EM, Deaton T, Hurst N, Siefert J. Operational point-of-care ultrasound review: low-cost simulators and resources for advanced prehospital providers. J Spec Oper Med. 2015;15(1):71–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Fenwick T, Dahlgren MA. Towards socio-material approaches in simulation-based education: lessons from complexity theory. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):359–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Bradley P, Postlethwaite K. Simulation in clinical learning. Med Educ. 2003;37(s1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Brunette V, Thibodeau-Jarry N. Simulation as a tool to ensure competency and quality of care in the cardiac critical care unit. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(1):119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004;38(10):1095–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Stocker M, Burmester M, Allen M. Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: a debate for a conceptual framework. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Endsley MR. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37(1):32–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Roussin CJ, Weinstock P: SimZones: An Organizational Innovation for Simulation Programs and Centers. Academic Medicine 2017, 92(8).

  98. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63-67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Sørensen JL, Østergaard D, LeBlanc V, Ottesen B, Konge L, Dieckmann P, Van der Vleuten C. Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Bracco F, Masini M, De Tonetti G, Brogioni F, Amidani A, Monichino S, Maltoni A, Dato A, Grattarola C, Cordone M, et al. Adaptation of non-technical skills behavioural markers for delivery room simulation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R. Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(5):580–8.

  102. MacCrossan M, Hamilton A, Kerrins J, Tallentire V. 15 Non-technical skills: developing a behavioural marker system to assess medical student performance within high fidelity simulation. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2016;2(Suppl 1):A26–7.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Griswold S, Fralliccardi A, Boulet J, Moadel T, Franzen D, Auerbach M, Hart D, Goswami V, Hui J, Gordon JA. Simulation-based education to ensure provider competency within the health care system. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(2):168–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Salas E, Burke CS. Simulation for training is effective when. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(2):119–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The project was commissioned by Health Education England, Midlands and East.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trent Simulation & Clinical Skills Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, Notts, UK

    Bryn Baxendale & Guilia Miles

  2. Institute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

    Kerry Evans, Louise Bramley, Eleanore Dring & Joanne Cooper

  3. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Research and Innovation, Nottingham, UK

    Alison Cowley

  4. Glasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Alastair Ross

Authors
  1. Bryn Baxendale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerry Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alison Cowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Louise Bramley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guilia Miles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alastair Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eleanore Dring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joanne Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of the study (BB, KEG, LB, GM, ED, JC), data collection and analysis (KE, LB, AC), initial drafting of the manuscript (BB, AR, KE, AC, LB), critical review of the manuscript (BB, AR, KE, AC, LB) and all authors provided final approval of the submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerry Evans.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable as all images within the manuscript were created by the research team.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baxendale, B., Evans, K., Cowley, A. et al. GENESISS 1—Generating Standards for In-Situ Simulation project: a scoping review and conceptual model. BMC Med Educ 22, 479 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03490-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03490-9

Keywords

  • In-situ simulation
  • Simulation-based education
  • Clinical training
  • Simulated practice
  • Health professions

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us