MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135003856 · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.818632

Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82

2013· article· en· W2135003856 on OpenAlexaff
Ivette Motola, Luke Devine, Hyun Soo Chung, John E. Sullivan, S. Barry Issenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingHealth careCurriculumBest practiceMedical educationComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Patient safetyInstructional simulationPsychologyMedicineMathematics educationPedagogyEducational technologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, there has been an exponential and enthusiastic adoption of simulation in healthcare education internationally. Medicine has learned much from professions that have established programs in simulation for training, such as aviation, the military and space exploration. Increased demands on training hours, limited patient encounters, and a focus on patient safety have led to a new paradigm of education in healthcare that increasingly involves technology and innovative ways to provide a standardized curriculum. A robust body of literature is growing, seeking to answer the question of how best to use simulation in healthcare education. Building on the groundwork of the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guide on the features of simulators that lead to effective learning, this current Guide provides practical guidance to aid educators in effectively using simulation for training. It is a selective review to describe best practices and illustrative case studies. This Guide is the second part of a two-part AMEE Guide on simulation in healthcare education. The first Guide focuses on building a simulation program, and discusses more operational topics such as types of simulators, simulation center structure and set-up, fidelity management, and scenario engineering, as well as faculty preparation. This Guide will focus on the educational principles that lead to effective learning, and include topics such as feedback and debriefing, deliberate practice, and curriculum integration - all central to simulation efficacy. The important subjects of mastery learning, range of difficulty, capturing clinical variation, and individualized learning are also examined. Finally, we discuss approaches to team training and suggest future directions. Each section follows a framework of background and definition, its importance to effective use of simulation, practical points with examples, and challenges generally encountered. Simulation-based healthcare education has great potential for use throughout the healthcare education continuum, from undergraduate to continuing education. It can also be used to train a variety of healthcare providers in different disciplines from novices to experts. This Guide aims to equip healthcare educators with the tools to use this learning modality to its full capability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.052

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,162
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207