[Practicing bad news]. / S'entraîner à l'annonce de mauvaises nouvelles.

Simulation has been in full expansion in France for the last ten years. In many teams, the use of procedural or high-tech simulation has been a new pedagogical means of training teams to manage emergency situations in different contexts. But simulation is also useful in other situations such as bad news.

The 2024 French guidelines for scenario design in simulation-based education: manikin-based immersive simulation, simulated participant-based immersive simulation and procedural simulation.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education in healthcare encompasses a wide array of modalities aimed at providing realistic clinical experiences supported by meticulously designed scenarios. The French-speaking Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SoFraSimS) has developed guidelines to assist educators in the design of scenarios for manikin- or simulated participant- based immersive simulation and procedural simulation, the three mainly used modalities. METHODS: After establishing a French-speaking group of experts within the SoFraSimS network, we performed an extensive literature review with theory-informed practices and personal experiences. We used this approach identify the essential criteria for practice-based scenario design within the three simulation modalities. RESULTS: We present three comprehensive templates for creating innovative scenarios and simulation sessions, each tailored to the specific characteristics of a simulation modality. The SoFraSimS templates include five sections distributed between the three modalities. The first section contextualizes the scenario by describing the practicalities of the setting, the instructors and learners, and its connection to the educational program. The second section outlines the learning objectives. The third lists all the elements necessary during the preparation phase, describing the educational method used for procedural simulation (such as demonstration, discovery, mastery learning, and deliberate practice). The fourth section addresses the simulation phase, detailing the behaviors the instructor aims to analyze, the embedded triggers, and the anticipated impact on simulation proceedings (natural feedback). This ensures maximum control over the learning experience. Finally, the fifth section compiles elements for post-simulation modifications to enhance future iterations. CONCLUSION: We trust that these guidelines will prove valuable to educators seeking to implement simulation-based education and contribute to the standardization of scenarios for healthcare students and professionals. This standardization aims to facilitate communication, comparison of practices and collaboration across different learning and healthcare institutions.

'What this article adds'1. The SoFraSimS provides guidelines to facilitate the development of simulation-based activities.2. These guidelines are theory-informed as well as evidence and experience-based.3. A detailed approach to writing a complete activity or scenario for procedural and immersive simulation including manikins or simulated participants is provided (the 'SoFraSimS templates').4. This work aims at standardizing practices and exchanging scenarios between simulation centers.

Randomized Controlled Study of a Training Program for Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis on Procedural Simulators with Assessment on Cadavers.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the efficacy of simulators in improving the competence of students in performing a knee and shoulder arthrocentesis on cadavers and to determine the minimum number of simulator training procedures needed to achieve competence in arthrocentesis. METHODS: Two groups of 15 medical students were each trained to perform a single joint arthrocentesis ("knee group" and "shoulder group") on a simulator to serve as a control for the other. The two groups received the same theoretical training (anatomy, arthrocentesis techniques, ultrasound, and hybrid simulation). Each student punctured the two joints on a cadaver. A student was considered "competent on the cadaver" if they succeeded at two or more arthrocentesis procedures out of the three tests on the joint on which they were trained. The minimum threshold value to be competent was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic curve and the Youden index. An assessment of theoretical knowledge and confidence level in joint arthrocentesis was carried out at the start and end of the study. RESULTS: Twenty-two out of 29 students (75.8%) achieved competence in arthrocentesis at the joint for which they were trained. Of the students in the knee group, 79% were competent on the cadaver's knee versus 60% of the students in the shoulder group (P = 0.43). Of students in the shoulder group, 74% were competent on the cadaver's shoulder versus 57% of students in the knee group (P = 0.45). Four training punctures on a simulator are necessary to achieve competence on a cadaver. The students' confidence level in arthrocentesis increased significantly during the study, as did the students' theoretical knowledge. CONCLUSION: Knee and shoulder arthrocentesis success rates were not statistically different between the two training groups. A minimum number of 4.0 training arthrocentesis on a simulator is needed to achieve competency on a cadaver.

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start. METHODS: First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee. RESULTS: Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted. CONCLUSION: Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.