Advertisement

Observational Methods in Simulation Research

  • Birgitte BruunEmail author
  • Peter Dieckmann
Chapter

Abstract

Observational data collection, analysis, and interpretation for research in and with simulation research entails choices regarding strategy, techniques and tools that should be made in the same process as the formulation of the research question and the development of concepts that will guide the study. Depending on the research question and purpose, observational data collection may be combined with other research methods. Analysis of observational data may draw from different research traditions with implications for interpretation. Ethical considerations should be on-going from conceptualising a research project to writing up the results.

Keywords

Observation Strategy Techniques Tools Concept work Post-positivism Constructionism Ethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Widmer LW, Keller S, Tschan F, et al. More than talking about the weekend: content of case-irrelevant communication within the OR team. World J Surg. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4442-4.
  2. 2.
    Zhang C, Miller C, Volkman K, Meza J, Jones K. Evaluation of the team performance observation tool with targeted behavioral markers in simulation-based interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(3):202–8.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.982789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manser T, Dieckmann P, Wehner T, Rall M. Comparison of anaesthetists’ activity patterns in the operating room and during simulation. Ergonomics. 2007;50(2):246–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130601032655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rall M, Gaba DM, Howard S, Dieckmann P. Human performance and patient safety. In: Miller RD, editor. Miller’s anesthesia. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2015. p. 106–66.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateson G. Form, substance and difference. In: Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1972. p. 455–71.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):49–55. https://doi.org/01253104-200600110-00006 [pii]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. “The research compass”: an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE guide no. 56. Med Teach. 2011.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595436.
  8. 8.
    Wolcott HF. Confessions of a “trained” observer. In: Transforming qualitative data. Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994. p. 149–72.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Anaesthetists PR. Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(5):580–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12697584. Accessed May 2, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G, Paterson-Brown S. Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J Surg. 2008;32(4):548–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9320-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manser T, Wehner T. Analysing action sequences: variations in action density in the administration of anaesthesia. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs101110200006.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2018.
  12. 12.
    Spradley JP. Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen Academy of Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES)Capital Region of Denmark, Center for Human ResourcesCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Quality and Health TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations