Simulation is a hugely versatile education tool, offering opportunities to practice domain-related knowledge and procedural skills themselves in an environment that is psychologically safe for the learner and without risking patient safety. Simulation comes into its own when established multidisciplinary clinical teams can practice critical incident management together, as it provides a concrete learning experience upon which to act, reflect and share mental models of specific clinical problems and hone non-technical and human factors skills. Anaesthesia as a specialty has been a driving force behind immersive simulation training, and the time for regular cross specialty simulation training has come. This is particularly relevant to the practice of neurosurgery where an acute incident has profound effects on the operative site, and the physiology of our patients requires rapid yet complex management. This chapter outlines some of the considerations for undertaking high-fidelity immersive simulation for neuroanaesthesia and outlines some of the evidence for its utility as well as key components for successful learning.
Simulation Patient safety Learning theory Non-technical skills Reflective practice Fidelity Debriefing
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86:706–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruppacher HR, et al. Simulation-based training improves physicians’ performance in patient care in high-stakes clinical setting of cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:985–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher G, et al. Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90:580–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb A, Kolb D. The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development. London: Sage Publications; 2009. p. 42–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Levels of harm in primary care. NHS Inst Innov Improv. 2011.Google Scholar
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.Google Scholar
Cook DA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teac. 2013;35:e867–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. BEME: features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27:10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner AK, Scott DJ. Concepts for developing expert surgical teams using simulation. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95:717–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med. 2014;89:387–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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;1:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön DA. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books; 1983.Google Scholar