Effectiveness of simulation in psychiatry for nursing students, nurses and nurse practitioners: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Mental disorders constitute one of the main causes of disease and disability worldwide. While nurses are often at the frontline of mental health care, they have limited access to dedicated psychiatric training opportunities. Simulation training may foster the development of the appropriate competencies required when supporting people with mental disorders. To evaluate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for nursing students, nurses and nurse practitioners. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases, trial registries, key journals and reference lists of selected studies were searched from inception to August 20, 2020 without language restriction. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled studies and single group pre/post studies. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used for randomized controlled study appraisal, and the Medical Education Research Study Quality instrument was completed for all other studies. Meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled studies. The other studies were synthesized narratively. The main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: A total of 118 studies (6738 participants) were found. Interventions included simulated patients (n = 55), role-plays (n = 40), virtual reality (n = 12), manikins (n = 9) and voice simulations (n = 9). Meta-analyses based on 11 randomized controlled studies found a significant large effect size on skills at immediate post-test for simulation compared with active control; and a small and medium effect size on learners' attitudes for simulation compared with inactive control, at immediate post-test and at three-month follow-up respectively. Three quarters of non-randomized controlled studies and pre/post-tests assessing attitudes and skills showed significant differences, and three quarters of participants in randomized controlled studies and pre/post-tests showed significant differences in behaviours. Among the few studies assessing people with mental health outcomes, almost all reported significant differences. CONCLUSION: These findings support the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatric nursing throughout professional development grades, despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions.

Simulation in psychiatry for medical doctors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single group pre- and post-test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role-play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta-analysis found significant differences at immediate post-tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.73 [I2  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53 [I2  = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56-2.18 [I2  = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39-2.58 [I2  = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57-1.88 [I2  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-1.30 [I2  = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49-1.65 [I2  = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11-0.79 [I2  = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors' behaviours and skills were found at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.

Telling the truth: medical students' progress with an ethical skill.

BACKGROUND: Truth-telling is a complex task requiring multiple skills in communication, understanding, and empathy. Its application in the context of breaking bad news (BBN) is distressing and problematic if conducted with insufficient skills. PURPOSE: We investigated the long-term influence of a simulated patient-based teaching intervention integrating the learning of communication skills within an ethical reflection on students' ethical attitudes towards truth-telling, perceived competence and comfort in BBN. METHODS: We followed two cohorts of medical students from the preclinical third year to their clinical rotations (fifth year). We analysed their ethical attitudes and level of comfort and competence in BBN before, after the intervention, and during clinical rotations. RESULTS: Students' ethical attitudes towards truth-telling remained stable. Students feeling uncomfortable or incompetent improved their level of perceived comfort or competence after the intervention, but those feeling comfortable or competent became more aware of the difficulty of the situation, and consequently decreased their level of comfort and competence. CONCLUSIONS: Confronting students with a realistic situation and integrating the practice of communication skills within an ethical reflection may be effective in maintaining ethical attitudes towards truth-telling, in developing new skills and increasing awareness about the difficulty and challenges of a BBN situation.

Twelve tips for a successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education session.

Simulation-based education allows experiential learning without risk to patients. Interprofessional education aims to provide opportunities to different professions for learning how to work effectively together. Interprofessional simulation-based education presents many challenges, including the logistics of setting up the session and providing effective feedback to participants with different backgrounds and mental models. This paper aims to provide educators with a series of practical and pedagogical tips for designing, implementing, assessing, and evaluating a successful interprofessional team-based simulation session. The paper is organized in the sequence that an educator might use in developing an interprofessional simulation-based education session. Collectively, this paper provides guidance from determining interprofessional learning objectives and curricular design to program evaluation. With a better understanding of the concepts and pedagogical methods underlying interprofessional education and simulation, educators will be able to create conditions for a unique educational experience where individuals learn with and from other specialties and professions in a controlled, safe environment.

Key challenges in simulated patient programs: an international comparative case study.

BACKGROUND: The literature on simulated or standardized patient (SP) methodology is expanding. However, at the level of the program, there are several gaps in the literature. We seek to fill this gap through documenting experiences from four programs in Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. We focused on challenges in SP methodology, faculty, organisational structure and quality assurance. METHODS: We used a multiple case study method with cross-case synthesis. Over eighteen months during a series of informal and formal interactions (focused meetings and conference presentations) we documented key characteristics of programs and drew on secondary document sources. RESULTS: Although programs shared challenges in SP methodology they also experienced differences. Key challenges common to programs included systematic quality assurance and the opportunity for research. There were differences in the terminology used to describe SPs, in their recruitment and training. Other differences reflected local conditions and demands in organisational structure, funding relationships with the host institution and national trends, especially in assessments. CONCLUSION: This international case study reveals similarities and differences in SP methodology. Programs were highly contextualised and have emerged in response to local, institutional, profession/discipline and national conditions. Broader trends in healthcare education have also influenced development. Each of the programs experienced challenges in the same themes but the nature of the challenges often varied widely.

Effectiveness of simulation in psychiatry for initial and continuing training of healthcare professionals: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Although most healthcare professionals must deal with patients with mental illness, many are not prepared for the various situations that can ensue. Simulation may be a powerful pedagogical tool for simultaneously teaching knowledge, skills and attitudes. We aim to assess the effectiveness of simulation for initial and continuous training in psychiatry for healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search for randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single-group pretest/post-test reports will be conducted in electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Web of Science (Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), with a detailed query. The reference lists of selected studies, key journals and trial registers will also be searched for additional studies. Two independent reviewers, following predefined inclusion criteria, will screen titles and abstracts first and then the full texts of the remaining articles. A third author will evaluate discrepancies to reach a consensus. It will include randomised controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, pre-test/post-test design studies, post-test design for satisfaction evaluation and qualitative studies. Risk of bias will be assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. Meta-analyses will be performed if we find sufficient studies that assess predefined outcomes and if their characteristics are not too different. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A narrative synthesis will be performed for qualitative studies and when meta-analyses are deemed not possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics permission is not required. Dissemination will be through publication in peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences, and the lead author's doctoral dissertation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078779.