Transfer of Clinical Decision-Making–Related Learning Outcomes Following Simulation-Based Education in Nursing and Medicine: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Simulation is often depicted as an effective tool for clinical decision-making education. Yet, there is a paucity of data regarding transfer of learning related to clinical decision-making following simulation-based education. The authors conducted a scoping review to map the literature regarding transfer of clinical decision-making learning outcomes following simulation-based education in nursing or medicine. METHOD: Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, the authors searched 5 databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) in May 2020 for quantitative studies in which the clinical decision-making performance of nursing and medical students or professionals was assessed following simulation-based education. Data items were extracted and coded. Codes were organized and hierarchized into patterns to describe conceptualizations and conditions of transfer, as well as learning outcomes related to clinical decision-making and assessment methods. RESULTS: From 5,969 unique records, 61 articles were included. Only 7 studies (11%) assessed transfer to clinical practice. In the remaining 54 studies (89%), transfer was exclusively assessed in simulations that often included one or more variations in simulation features (e.g., scenarios, modalities, duration, and learner roles; 50, 82%). Learners' clinical decision-making, including data gathering, cue recognition, diagnoses, and/or management of clinical issues, was assessed using checklists, rubrics, and/or nontechnical skills ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Research on simulation-based education has focused disproportionately on the transfer of learning from one simulation to another, and little evidence exists regarding transfer to clinical practice. The heterogeneity in conditions of transfer observed represents a substantial challenge in evaluating the effect of simulation-based education. The findings suggest that 3 dimensions of clinical decision-making performance are amenable to assessment-execution, accuracy, and speed-and that simulation-based learning related to clinical decision-making is predominantly understood as a gain in generalizable skills that can be easily applied from one context to another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".