A framework to support the development of quality simulation-based learning programmes in speech-language pathology.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based learning provides students with a safe learning environment, guaranteed exposure to specific clinical scenarios and patients, time for reflection and repetition of tasks, and an opportunity to receive feedback from multiple sources. Research including studies specific to allied health training programmes have demonstrated that simulation-based learning also helps increase learners' confidence and reduces anxiety related to clinical environments, activities and skills. Such evidence, together with increasing challenges in provision of workplace clinical education, has supported an expansion of integrating simulation-based learning into university curricula. AIMS: To provide detailed information about the processes and considerations involved in the development of a simulation-based learning programme for speech-language pathology. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Through reflection on the development process of a 5-day simulation-based learning programme, and in light of existing research in simulation, this paper outlines the important steps and considerations required for the development of a simulation-based learning programme to support student competency development in adult speech pathology range of practice areas. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: A proposed framework for the development of future simulation-based learning programmes in speech-language pathology. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The framework can be applied to simulation-based learning for university programmes and/or workplace training in speech-language pathology and across several other health disciplines.

Diversity in the Australian speech-language pathology workforce: Addressing Sustainable Development Goals 3, 4, 8, and 10.

PURPOSE: Individuals have multiple intersecting identities, unique perspectives, and experiences which provide opportunities for new ways to interact, support inclusion and equity, and address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This commentary explores the diversity of the speech-language pathology workforce in Australia. RESULT: A survey of Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs; n = 1,638) distributed in November and December 2021 explored personal characteristics and experiences of the workforce. Almost 30% of SLPs who responded reported having experiences or perspectives that were relevant to service users and a quarter described other lived experiences, which included disability, cultural and linguistic background, mental health, caring responsibilities, neurodiversity, and being LGBTQI+. CONCLUSION: This commentary affirms the value of diversity among allied health professions to enrich practice with individuals and communities. By understanding the diversity of the speech-language pathology workforce and perspectives of historically marginalised or invisible groups, the profession can introduce strategies to more meaningfully engage and support people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives in the workforce and enhance service equity and accessibility for people with communication and swallowing disabilities. This commentary focusses on SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 8, SDG 10.

A cost analysis of a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology student training.

Purpose: There is poor reporting of the cost of simulation and greater transparency is needed. The primary study aim was to conduct a financial analysis of the university/training institution costs associated with a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology students. The secondary aim was to consider the economic costs of the model.Method: Costs associated with the delivery of a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology students from six Australian universities were collected regarding: (a) pre-program training, (b) personnel, (c) room hire, (d) equipment, and (e) consumables. Both financial costs and economic costs (Australian dollar, at June 2017) were calculated per university site, and per student.Result: The simulation program was run 21 times involving 176 students. Average total financial cost per program ranged from $4717 to $11 425, with cost variation primarily attributed to local labour costs and various use of in-kind support. Average financial cost per student was $859 (range $683-$1087), however this was almost double ($1461 per student, range $857-$2019) in the economic cost calculation. Personnel was the largest contributing cost component accounting for 76.6% of financial costs. Personnel was also the highest contributing cost in the economic analysis, followed by room hire.Conclusion: This study provides clarity regarding financial and economic costing for a 5-day simulation-based learning program. These data can help universities consider potential up-front financial costs, and well as strategies for financial cost minimisation, when implementing simulation-based learning within the university context.

Simulation can replace part of speech-language pathology placement time: A randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Simulation is increasingly used within speech-language pathology education. Research has primarily explored students' perceptions of learning in simulation. The aim of this study was to determine if speech-language pathology students achieved a statistically-equivalent level of competency when a mean of 20% of placement time was replaced with simulation compared to placements without a simulation component. METHOD: This non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involved students from six Australian universities. Students were randomised to either a simulation + traditional placement group attending 5 days of simulation prior to their traditional placement, or a traditional only placement group. Their end-placement clinical competency was assessed using Competency Assessment in Speech Pathology (COMPASS®). RESULT: Final data were available for 325 students: 150 students in traditional placements, 138 students in protocol-compliant simulation + traditional placements, and 37 students in non-protocol simulation + traditional placements. There were no statistically significant differences between groups (traditional vs protocol-compliant simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon z = 1.23, df = 286, p = 0.22; traditional vs intention-to-treat simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon z = 0.23, df = 323, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: This research contributes to the evidence base which suggests that simulation can partially replace traditional placement time for speech-language pathology students without loss of competency, substantiating its value as an alternative placement model in speech-language pathology programmes.