Evaluating the Impact of In-Situ Simulation on Interprofessional Healthcare Team Training

Condition(s) studied

Investigational drug(s) / intervention(s)

In Situ Simulation: Simulation scenario carried out in situ. The training team will consist of 3 facilitators (who will always be the same throughout the study), with each scenario having only 2 facilitators and the principal investigator. Each group will be subjected to the same simulation scenario, the process of which is approximately 60 minutes, divided into: Briefing - 10 min; Scenario Development - 15 minutes; Debriefing - 30/35 min.

Simulation Center: Simulation scenario carried out in the Simulation Center. The training team will consist of 3 facilitators (who will always be the same throughout the study), with each scenario having only 2 facilitators and the principal investigator. Each group will be subjected to the same simulation scenario, the process of which is approximately 60 minutes, divided into: Briefing - 10 min; Scenario Development - 15 minutes; Debriefing - 30/35 min.

Study summary

Clinical simulation has established itself as an essential methodology in healthcare training, enabling the development of technical and non-technical skills in controlled and safe environments. This study proposes a randomized trial that compares the impact of two learning contexts-a simulation center and the in situ simulation (ISS) environment in the operating room-on the training of interprofessional teams. The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of each context in the acquisition and performance of technical and non-technical skills, as well as participants' perceptions of realism, teamwork, and patient safety. The randomized experimental design reinforces the methodological rigor and internal validity of the results, allowing the identification of important differences between the two approaches. The scarcity of studies on interprofessional simulation in a real clinical context underscores the relevance of this research, which may provide scientific evidence to guide training policies and promote safer, more collaborative practices. It is expected that the results will contribute to improving interprofessional training programs and supporting the systematic integration of ISS in the healthcare field, especially in high-complexity environments.

Eligibility

Primary outcome measure(s)

• Simulation Effectiveness (SET-M) — Immediately after the simulation session (Day 1)
  Measured with Simulation Effectiveness Tool - Modified (SET-M). SET-M is a 19-item tool with a three-point Likert scale that measures effectiveness by capturing student feedback on three domains. The higher the score, the more effective the simulation training.
• Simulation Effectiveness (ICCAS) — Immediately after the simulation session (Day 1)
  Measured with the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS). ICCAS is a 20-item self-report tool with a seven-point Likert scale that evaluates the participants' competencies in six dimensions before and after the simulation. Participants complete the tool after simulation training, but rate their abilities twice: once as they recall them before training, and after that training is done. The higher the score, the more effective the simulation training.
• Simulation Design Evaluation — Immediately after the simulation session (Day 1)
  Evaluated using Simulation Design Scale (SDS) - Student version. SDS is a 20-item tool with a five-point Likert scale designed to evaluate five design features of instructor-developed simulations. The instrument has two parts: the presence of specific features in the simulation and the importance of those features to the learner. The higher the score, the higher the evaluation of the design feature.
• Simulation Debriefing Assessment — Immediately after the simulation session (Day 1)
  Measured with the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) Short version for students and for instructors. DASH for students has students evaluating the instructors in 6 elements with a seven-point Likert scale, while DASH for instructors is a self-assessment tool with the same structure. The higher the score, the higher the debriefing skill.

Trial sites (2)

More Universidade do Porto trials in Portugal