More Work Needed! Analysis of Fuzzy Concepts in Simulation-Based Learning.
J. Paige
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20160114-01
2016-02-01
Journal of Nursing Education
Abstract:When attending conferences or while conducting simulations, how many times have educators heard comments such as, “Simulation is a safe learning environment,” “What happens in sim stays in sim,” or “Cue the student.” Each comment refl ects an aspect or phase in simulationbased learning. That said, how educators interpret these statements varies. For example, when considering the concept of a safe learning environment, one could ask for whom is it safe—the student, the patient, or both? If one educator believes that “safe” pertains to preserving the student’s psychological safety, what actions does he or she take while conducting the simulation or the approach used in the debriefi ng session? Would the educator’s concern about not harming the student’s psychological safety supersede probing about errors in judgment? Conversely, if an educator believes “safe” pertains to not harming a real person, would he or she allow the student to make the error and then address it in the debrief? How many educators have pondered whether to let students make potentially lifethreatening decisions or stop the simulation to correct the error in process? Does the educator’s interpretation of what comprises a safe learning environment infl uence the choice to stop or continue with the simulation? Furthermore, the reoccurring comment heard at simulation conferences, “what happens in sim, stays in sim,” might refl ect another aspect of the safe learning environment concept. Yet, what meaning is conveyed by this statement? Some educators may consider that the phrase pertains to the need for students to maintain the confi dentiality of the scenario. Other educators may think this phrase pertains to maintaining confi dentially of students’ performance. Further work to clarify the underlying assumptions behind this colloquial phase is needed. This clarifi cation is even more important, given the 2015 National Council of State Boards on Nursing guidelines that call for an established method to share student performance in simulation activities with clinical faculty (Alexander et al., 2015). Although the concept of a safe learning environment is discussed in the literature (Ganley & Linnard-Palmer, 2012; Rudolph, Raemer, & Simon, 2014), aspects of what comprises a safe learning environment and the meaning educators associate with the concept vary. Similarly, other concepts that educators use daily when planning and conducting simulation activities can be challenged. For example, creeping into educators’ language are terms such as fi delity, cueing, fi ction contract, prebrief, and debriefi ng. Such terms, some of which have origins in other disciplines (e.g., military, aviation), may assume a slight variation in meaning when applied in simulation-based learning. Although efforts to clarify concepts such as debriefi ng (Dreifuerst, 2009) and prebriefing (Chamberlain, 2015; Page-Cutrara, 2015) have occurred, conceptual defi nitions in the context of simulation-based learning remain underdeveloped. This underdevelopment is not surprising, given curricular integration of simulation across health care professions has occurred at a faster pace than the ability to develop and establish conceptual clarity of concepts used in simulation. While applauding the efforts of all who have contributed to the development of knowledge and skill in the use of simulation, what must be championed are efforts to develop conceptual clarity, including borrowed concepts from other disciplines within the context of simulation-based learning.