Advertisement

Simulation und Forschung

  • Michaela Kolbe
  • Julia Seelandt
  • Andrina Nef
  • Bastian Grande
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Simulation ist ein rasch wachsendes Forschungsfeld und beinhaltet 2 Schwerpunkte: Simulation als Trainingsmethode und Simulation als Untersuchungsmethode. Die Forschung zur Simulation als Trainingsmethode ist v. a. anwendungsorientiert mit dem Ziel, Informationen darüber zu erlangen, wie Simulationstrainings gestaltet werden können, damit die Teilnehmenden möglichst viel und nachhaltig lernen. Die Forschung mit Simulation als Untersuchungsmethode beinhaltet v. a. Grundlagenforschung mit dem Ziel, via Simulation Prozesse und Zusammenhänge zu untersuchen, die sonst nicht oder weniger gut zu untersuchen wären. In diesem Kapitel geben wir einen kurzen Überblick über beide Forschungsgebiete, weisen auf interdisziplinäre Herausforderungen und aktuelle Forschungslücken hin und bieten dazu Handlungsempfehlungen an.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Cheng A et al (2016) Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learning 2(3):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levine AI et al (2014) The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook DA et al (2011) Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 306(9):978–988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook DA et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 7(5):308–320.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0b013e3182614f95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGaghie WC et al (2010) A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ 44(1):50–63PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barsuk JH et al (2014) Dissemination of a simulation-based mastery learning intervention reduces central line-associated bloodstream infections. BMJ Qual Saf 23(9):749–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maloney S, Haines T (2016) Issues of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness for simulation in health professions education. Advanc Simul 1(1):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Baker DP (1996) Training teams performance-related assertiveness. Pers Psychol 49:909–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith-Jentsch KA et al (2008) Guided team self-correction: impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Gr Res 39:303–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2001) The science of training: a decade of progress. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):471–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudolph JW et al (2007) Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. Anesthesiol Clin 25:361–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudolph JW et al (2008) Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 15:1010–1016PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rudolph JW et al (2013) Helping without harming. The instructor’s feedback dilemma in debriefing – a case study. Simul Healthc 8:304–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaye P, Thomas L, Reedy G (2015) „The diamond“: a structure for simulation debrief. Clin Teach 12(3):171–175PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eppich W, Cheng A (2015) Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc 10:106–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolbe M et al (2013) TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Qual Saf 22:541–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sawyer T et al (2016) More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc 11(3):209–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eppich WJ et al (2015) Structuring feedback and debriefing to achieve mastery learning goals. Acad Med 90:1501–1508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng A et al (2014) Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ 48(7):657–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolbe M et al (2016) How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns. Adv Simul 1(29). https://advancesinsimulation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7
  21. 21.
    Schick CJ et al (2015) Simulation with PARTS (Phase-Augmented Research and Training Scenarios): a structure facilitating research and assessment in simulation. Simul Healthc 10(3):178–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farooq O et al (2017) Comparison of oral and video debriefing and its effect on knowledge acquisition following simulation-based learning. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanced Learning 3:48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krogh K, Bearman M, Nestel D (2015) Expert practice of video-assisted debriefing: an Australian qualitative study. Clin Simul Nurs 11(3):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reed SJ, Andrews CM, Ravert P (2013) Debriefing simulations: comparison of debriefing with video and debriefing alone. Clin Simul Nurs 9:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savoldelli MDME, Georges L et al (2006) Value of debriefing during simulated crisis management: oral versus video-assisted oral feedback. Anesthesiology 105(2):279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sawyer T et al (2012) The effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing versus oral debriefing alone at improving neonatal resuscitation performance: a randomized trial. Simul Healthc 7(4):213–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R (2014) Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the pre-simulation briefing. Simul Healthc 9(6):339–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hunt EA et al (2014) Pediatric resident resuscitation skills improve after „rapid cycle deliberate practice“ training. Resuscitation 85:945–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cheng A et al (2015) The use of high-fidelity manikins for advanced life support training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 93:142–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sullivan NJ et al (2015) Simulation exercise to improve retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation priorities for in-hospital cardiac arrests: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 86:6–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kennedy CC et al (2014) Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 42(1):169–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schulze M et al (2016) SafAIRway: an airway training for pulmonologists performing a flexible bronchoscopy with nonanesthesiologist administered propofol sedation: a prospective evaluation. Medicine 95(23):e3849PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pian-Smith MCM et al (2009) Teaching residents the two-challenge rule: a simulation-based approach to improve education and patient safety. Simul Healthc 4(2):84–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raemer DB et al (2016) Improving faculty’s ability to speak-up to others in the operating room: a simulation-based randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention and an qualitative analysis of hurdles and enablers. Acad Med 91:530–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Connor P et al (2013) „Excuse me“: teaching interns to speak up. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 39:426–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weiss M et al (2017) Why didn’t you say something? Using after-event reviews to affect voice behavior and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 26(1):66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    St.Pierre M et al (2016) Briefing improves the management of a difficult mask ventilation in infants. Anaesthesist 65:681–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Minehart RD et al (2014) Improving faculty feedback to resident trainees during a simulated case: a randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention. Anesthesiology 120(1):160–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grande B et al (2015) Ist Reden wichtig? Technisches versus kombiniert technisches/nicht-technisches Atemwegstraining in der Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin. Anästhesiol Intensivmed 56:5–12Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Heukelom JN, Begaz T, Treat R (2010) Comparison of postsimulation debriefing versus in-simulation debriefing in medical simulation. Simul Healthc 5(2):91–97.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0b013e3181be0d17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raemer D et al (2011) Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc 6(7):S52–S57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weinger MB (2010) The pharmacology of simulation: a conceptual framework to inform progress in simulation research. Simul Healthc 5:8–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kolbe M, Burtscher M, Manser T (2013) Co-ACT – a framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams. BMJ Qual Saf 22:596–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seelandt JC et al (2014) Assessing distractors and teamwork during surgery: developing an event-based method for direct observation. BMJ Qual Saf 23:918–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burtscher MJ et al (2010) Managing non-routine events in anesthesia: the role of adaptive coordination. Hum Factors 52:282–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kolbe M et al (2012) Speaking-up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: an observational study. Anesth Analg 115:1099–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tschan F et al (2015) Impact of case-relevant and case-irrelevant communication within the surgical team on surgical-site infection. Br J Surg 102(13):1718–1725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hughes AM et al (2016) Saving lives: a meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. J Appl Psychol 101(9):1266–1304 (no pagination specified)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moorman RH, Podsakoff PM (1992) A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. J Occup Organ Psychol 65(2):131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hagiwara MA et al (2016) Measuring participants’ immersion in healthcare simulation: the development of an instrument. Advanc Simul 1(1):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Meguerdichian M, Walker K, Bajaj K (2016) Working memory is limited: improving knowledge transfer by optimising simulation through cognitive load theory. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanced Learn 2(4):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brett-Fleegler M et al (2012) Debriefing assessment for simulation in healthcare. Development and psychometric properties. Simul Healthc 7:288–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arora S et al (2012) Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD): bringing science to the art of debriefing in surgery. Ann Surg 256:982–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hull L et al (2017) Quality of interdisciplinary postsimulation debriefing: 360° evaluation. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanced Learning 3(1):9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kauffeld S, Meyers RA (2009) Complaint and solution-oriented circles in work groups. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 18:267–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Seelandt J, Grande B, Kriech S, Kolbe M (im Druck). DE-CODE: a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanced LearningCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dietz AS et al (2014) A systematic review of behavioural marker systems in healthcare: what do we know about their attributes, validity and application? BMJ Qual Safe 23(12):1031–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rosen MA et al (2014) An integrative framework for sensor-based measurement of teamwork in healthcare. J Am Med Inform Assoc 22:11–18PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rosen MA et al (2008) Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simul Healthc 3(1):33–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 8:45–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manage Rev 26:356–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Moran KM, Harris IB, Valenta AL (2016) Competencies for patient safety and quality improvement: a synthesis of recommendations in influential position papers. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 42(4):162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a „big five“ in teamwork? Small Group Res 36:555–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    St.Pierre M et al (2012) Äußern Assistenzärzte und Pflegekräfte sicherheitsrelevante Bedenken? (Do residents and nurses communicate safety relevant concerns? Simulation study on the influence of the authority gradient). Anaesthesist 61(10):857–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Weiss M et al (2014) Agency and communion predict speaking up in acute care teams. Small Group Res 45:290–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Burtscher MJ et al (2011) Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. J Exp Psychol Appl 17:257–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Burtscher MJ et al (2011) Adaptation in anaesthesia team coordination in response to a simulated critical event and its relationship to clinical performance. Br J Anaesth 10:801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Manser T et al (2009) Coordination patterns related to high clinical performance in a simulated anesthetic crisis. Anesth Analg 108:1606–1615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schmutz J et al (2015) Effective coordination in medical emergency teams: the moderating role of task type. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 24:761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Riethmüller M et al (2012) Adaptive coordination development in student anaesthesia teams: a longitudinal study. Ergonomics 55(1):55–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Künzle B et al (2010) Substitutes for leadership in anaesthesia teams and their impact on leadership effectiveness. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 19:505–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Künzle B et al (2010) Leadership in anaesthesia teams: the most effective leadership is shared. Qual Saf Health Care 19:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bogenstätter Y et al (2009) How accurate is information transmitted to medical professionals joining a medical emergency? A simulator study. Hum Factors 51:115–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tschan F et al (2009) Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory. A simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Gr Res 40:271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Minehart RD et al (2012) Speaking across the drapes: communication strategies of anesthesiologists and obstetricians during a simulated maternal crisis. Simul Healthc 7:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rudolph JW, Morrison JB, Carroll JS (2009) The dynamics of action-oriented problem solving: linking interpretation and choice. Acad Manage J 34:733–756Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Larson JRJ et al (1998) Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. J Pers Soc Psych 75:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Christensen C et al (2000) Decision making of clinical teams: communication patterns and diagnostic error. Med Decis Making 20(1):45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tschan F et al (2006) Leading to recovery: group performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum Perform 19:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Marsch SC et al (2005) Unnecessary interruptions of cardiac massage during simulated cardiac arrests. Eur J Anaesthesiol 22:831–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hunziker S et al (2009) Hands-on time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is affected by the process of teambuilding: a prospective randomised simulator-based trial. BMC Emerg Med 9(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Fernandez Castelao E et al (2011) Positive impact of crisis resource management training on no-flow time and team member verbalisations during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 82:1338–1343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Marsch SCU et al (2005) Performance of first responders in simulated cardiac arrests. Crit Care Med 33:963–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tschan F et al (2011) Decisive action vs. joint deliberation: different medical tasks imply different coordination requirements. In: Duffy VG (Hrsg) Advances in human factors and ergonomics in healthcare. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, S 191–200Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nestel D et al (2011) Nontechnical skills: an inaccurate and unhelpful descriptor? Simul Healthc 6(1):2–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Morrison EW (2011) Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research. Acad Manag Ann 5(1):373–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kolbe M, Grande B (2016) „Speaking Up“ statt tödlichem Schweigen im Krankenhaus: Die entscheidende Rolle der Gruppenprozesse und Organisationskultur. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Z Angew Organisationspsych (GIO) 47(4):299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Schuerner P et al (2016) Hands-off time for endotracheal intubation during CPR is not altered by the use of the C-MAC video-laryngoscope compared to conventional direct laryngoscopy. A randomized crossover manikin study. PLOS ONE 11(5):e0155997PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L (2012) The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ 46(7):636–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB (2007) Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation. Simul Healthc 2:161–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Krogh KB et al (2014) Time matters – realism in resuscitation training. Resuscitation 85(8):1093–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Eddy ER, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE (2013) Helping teams to help themselves: comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Pers Psychol 66:975–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    DeRue DS et al (2012) A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. J Appl Psychol 97(5):997–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP (2013) Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors 55(1):231–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Husebø SE et al (2013) The relationship between facilitators’ questions and the level of reflection in postsimulation debriefing. Simul Healthc 8:135–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kihlgren P, Spanager L, Dieckmann P (2015) Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios. Med Teach 37:437–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Vashdi DR, Bamberger PA, Erez M (2013) Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Acad Manage J 56:945–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Tannenbaum SI, Goldhaber-Fiebert S (2013) Medical team debriefs: simple, powerful, underutilized. In: Salas E, Frush K (Hrsg) Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. Oxford University Press, New York, S 249–256Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cheng A et al (2015) Faculty development for simulation programs: five issues for the future of debriefing training. Simul Healthc 10(4):217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Salas E, Paige JT, Rosen MA (2013) Creating new realities in healthcare: the status of simulation-based training as a patient safety improvement strategy. BMJ Qual Saf 22(6):449–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Riskin A et al (2015) The impact of rudeness on medical team performance: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 136:487–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Porath CL, Erez A (2009) Overlooked but not untouched: how rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 109(1):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Dieckmann P, Krage R (2013) Simulation and psychology: creating, recognizing and using learning opportunities. Cur Opin Anesthesiol 26(6):714–720.  https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0000000000000018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Putnam LL, Fairhurst GT, Banghart S (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Acad Manag Ann 10(1):65–171Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Shoham-Salomon V, Rosenthal R (1987) Paradoxical intervention: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 55(1):22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Simon FB, Rech-Simon C (2007) Zirkuläres Fragen. Systemische Therapie in Fallbeispielen: Ein Lernbuch, 7. Aufl. Carl-Auer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Sachse R, Collatz A (2012) Wie ruiniere ich meine Karriere – und zwar systematisch! Klett-Cotta, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Dooley D (2001) Social research methods. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Field AP, Hole G (2003) How to design and report experiments. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Reis HT, Judd CM (2000) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kozlowski SW (2015) Advancing research on team process dynamics. Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational. Psychol Rev 5(4):270–299Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Dixon-Woods M et al (2004) The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Safe Health Care 13(3):223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Grant AM (2013) Give and take. Orion Publishing Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    He Z-L, Geng X-S, Campbell-Hunt C (2009) Research collaboration and research output: a longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university. Res Policy 38(2):306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ryazanova O, McNamara P (2016) Socialization and proactive behavior: multilevel exploration of research productivity drivers in U.S. business schools. Acad Manage Learn Educ 15(3):525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Desender L et al (2013) Patient-specific rehearsal prior to EVAR: a pilot study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 45(6):639–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Kolbe
    • 1
  • Julia Seelandt
    • 1
  • Andrina Nef
    • 1
  • Bastian Grande
    • 1
  1. 1.SimulationszentrumUniversitätsspital ZürichZürichSchweiz

Personalised recommendations