Showing papers by "Brian Jolly published in 2016"

A national training program for simulation educators and technicians: evaluation strategy and outcomes

Abstract: Simulation-based education (SBE) has seen a dramatic uptake in health professions education over the last decade. SBE offers learning opportunities that are difficult to access by other methods. Competent faculty is seen as key to high quality SBE. In 2011, in response to a significant national healthcare issue – the need to enhance the quality and scale of SBE - a group of Australian universities was commissioned to develop a national training program - Australian Simulation Educator and Technician Training (AusSETT) Program. This paper reports the evaluation of this large-scale initiative.

Does Appearance Matter? Current Issues and Formulation of a Research Agenda for Moulage in Simulation.

Abstract: The use of moulage is assumed to add realism and authentic context in simulation. Despite the expense required to utilize moulage effectively, there is little exploration in the literature as to both its necessity and its accuracy of portrayal. We explore engagement, authenticity, and realism theories in the context of moulage and highlight the need for more evidence on moulage in simulation-based education, including suggestions for future research. In particular, we urge the simulation community to move beyond descriptive papers to investigate moulage in terms of justification and clarification.

Simulation training in obstetrics and gynaecology: What's happening on the frontline?

Abstract: Background: Despite evidence supporting simulation training and awareness that trainee exposure to surgery is suboptimal, it is not known how simulation is being incorporated in obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) training across Australia and New Zealand. Aim: To investigate the current availability and utilisation of simulation training, and the attitudes, perceived barriers and enablers towards simulation in Australia and New Zealand. Method: A survey was distributed to O&G trainees and fellows in Australia and New Zealand. The survey recorded demographic data, current exposure to simulation and beliefs about simulation training. Results: The survey returned 624 responses (24.3%). Most trainees had access to at least one type of simulation (87%). Access to simulators was higher for trainees at tertiary hospitals (92% vs 76%). Few trainees had a simulation curriculum, allocated time or supervision for simulation training. ‘Limited access’ was the highest rated barrier to using simulation. Lack of time, other training priorities and cost were identified as further barriers. More than 80% of respondents believed simulation improves surgical skills, skills transfer to the operating theatre, and the addition of simulation to the RANZCOG curriculum would benefit trainees. However, a minority of respondents believed simulator proficiency should be shown prior to performing surgery. The need for a curriculum and supervision were highlighted as necessary supports for simulation training. Conclusions: Despite simulator availability, few trainees are supported by simulation training curricula, allocated time or supervision. Participants believed that simulation training benefits trainees and should be supported with a curriculum and teaching.

National licensing exam or no national licensing exam? That is the question

Abstract: Competence-Based Medical Education: AMC Consultation Paper. Canberra: Australian Medical Council 2010. 10 Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2004;39 (1):98–106. 11 Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick R, Szalay D. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 1998;73:993–7. 12 Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach 2011;33:478–85.

Are dietetics educators' attitudes to assessment a barrier to expanding placement opportunities? Results of a Delphi study

Abstract: Aim - Assessment of entry-level health professionals is complex, especially in the work-based setting, placing additional pressures on these learning environments. The present study aims to gain understanding and ideally consensus regarding the setting for assessment of all elements of competence for entry-level dietitians across Australia. Methods - Seventy-five experienced academic and practitioner assessors were invited to participate in an online Delphi survey. The 166 entry-level performance criteria of the competency standards for dietitians formed the basis of the questions in the survey, with rating on which ones could be assessed in the practice setting, those which could be assessed in a classroom/university setting and which could be assessed in either setting. Forty-three of 75 invited assessors responded to the first round of the Delphi. A second modified survey was sent to the 43 participants with 34 responding. Results - Consensus was achieved for the assessment setting for 86 (52%) of the performance criteria after two rounds of surveying. The majority of these performance criteria achieved consensus at round one (n = 44) and were deemed to be best assessed in the practice setting (n = 55). This study highlighted the perspectives of assessors and their preference for the work-based setting for assessment. Conclusions - To reduce the focus on work-based settings as the only place for competence-based assessment of health professionals, there is a need to support individual and organisational change through challenging existing norms around assessment.

Are dietetics educators' attitudes to assessment a barrier to expanding placement opportunities? Results of a Delphi study

Abstract: Aim: Assessment of entry-level health professionals is complex, especially in the work-based setting, placing additional pressures on these learning environments. The present study aims to gain understanding and ideally consensus regarding the setting for assessment of all elements of competence for entry-level dietitians across Australia. Methods: Seventy-five experienced academic and practitioner assessors were invited to participate in an online Delphi survey. The 166 entry-level performance criteria of the competency standards for dietitians formed the basis of the questions in the survey, with rating on which ones could be assessed in the practice setting, those which could be assessed in a classroom/university setting and which could be assessed in either setting. Forty-three of 75 invited assessors responded to the first round of the Delphi. A second modified survey was sent to the 43 participants with 34 responding. Results: Consensus was achieved for the assessment setting for 86 (52%) of the performance criteria after two rounds of surveying. The majority of these performance criteria achieved consensus at round one (n = 44) and were deemed to be best assessed in the practice setting (n = 55). This study highlighted the perspectives of assessors and their preference for the work-based setting for assessment. Conclusions: To reduce the focus on work-based settings as the only place for competence-based assessment of health professionals, there is a need to support individual and organisational change through challenging existing norms around assessment.