Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scenario Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Mobile Medical Simulation

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

  • 500 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will explore the process of scenario design. Scenario design is perhaps the most important yet difficult phase of implementing a simulation curriculum, regardless of whether that curriculum is delivered in a high-fidelity simulation center or via a mobile training session. Scenarios should be developed using educationally-sound practices, driven by a needs assessment and the learning objectives of the simulation. The choice of formative versus summative assessment will also be determined by the needs of the participants.

While scenario design can be time-consuming, the process can be made more efficient through the use of design templates and storyboards. Design templates ensure that important aspects of a simulation scenario are accounted for as the scenario is being created. Ultimately, if good practices are followed, time spent upfront on scenario design will result in a more robust simulation experience for the participants, more realistic learning experiences, and better educational outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

INACSL:

International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning

SMART:

Specific measurable achievable relevant time-bound

References

  1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ. 2014;48(4):375–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shemanko GA, Jones L. Chapter 8: to simulate or not to simulate: that is the question. In: Kyle RR, Murray WB, editors. Clinical simulation: operations, engineering and management. New York: Elsevier; 2010. 848 p.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochem Educ. 1989;17(3):140–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schunk DH. Learning theories: an educational perspective. 6th ed. Pearson Education: Harlow; 2014. 576 p.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glavin RJ. Chapter 7: when simulation should and should not be in the curriculum. In: Kyle RR, Murray WB, editors. Clinical simulation: operations, engineering and management. New York: Elsevier; 2010. p. 71–6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Durham CF, Alden KR. Chapter 51: enhancing patient safety in nursing education through patient simulation. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. p. 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Knowles MS. The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Revised and updated. Englewood Cliffs: Cambridge Adult Education; 1980. 400 p.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lowenthal P, Wilson BG. Labels do matter! A critique of AECT’s redefinition of the field. Tech Trends. 2010;54(1):38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL standards of best practice: simulationSM simulation design. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12(S):S5–S12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benishek LE, Lazzara EH, Gaught WL, Arcaro LL, Okuda Y, Salas E. The template of events for applied and critical healthcare simulation (TEACH Sim): a tool for systematic simulation scenario design. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(1):21–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. California Simulation Alliance. Simulation scenario template 2008 [updated March 2011; cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: https://healthimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CSA-Scenario-Template-4-2011.pdf.

  12. Bray B. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Human patient simulation scenario development patient case template. 2014 [updated January 31 2014; cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: http://www.aacp.org/meetingsandevents/AM/Documents/Simulation%20Scenario%20case%20template%206-8-10.pdf.

  13. Jeffries PR. Simulation in nursing education: from conceptualization to evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: National League for Nursing; 2007. 288 p.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. SAEM Simulation interest group simulation scenario template. 2014 [updated February 2012; cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: http://stage.saem.org/sites/default/files/SAEM%20SIG%20scenario%20template%20RIHMSC%20rev%202.8.09.pdf.

  15. Taekman JM. Template for simulation patient design. Durham, NC: Duke University Medical Center; 2003. [updated 2003 December 2; cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: http://simcenter.duke.edu/support.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nayahangan LJ, Stefanidis D, Kern DE, Konge L. How to identify and prioritize procedures suitable for simulation-based training: experiences from general needs assessments using a modified Delphi method and a needs assessment formula. Med Teach. 2018;40(7):676–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jarzemsky P, McCarthy J, Ellis N. Incorporating quality and safety education for nurses competencies in simulation scenario design. Nurse Educ. 2010;35(2):90–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: cognition domain. White Plains: Longman; 1956. 207 p.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson LW. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Pearson Education; 2000. 336 p.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bjerke MB, Renger R. Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Eval Program Plann. 2017;61:125–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Popham WJ. Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2018. 448 p.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stillman PL, Ruggill JS, Rutala PJ, Sabers DL. Patient instructors as teachers and evaluators. J Med Educ. 1980;55(3):186–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boulet JR, Jeffries PR, Hatala RA, Korndorffer JR, Feinstein DM, Roche JP. Research regarding methods of assessing learning outcomes. Simul Healthc. 2011;6(S):S48–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Doumouras AG, Keshet I, Nathens AB, Ahmed N, Hicks CM. Trauma non-technical training (TNT-2): the development, piloting and multilevel assessment of a simulation-based, interprofessional curriculum for team-based trauma resuscitation. Can J Surg. 2014;57(5):354–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. King AE, Conrad M, Ahmed RA. Improving collaboration among medical, nursing and respiratory therapy students through interprofessional simulation. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(3):269–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Welsch LA, Hoch J, Poston RD, Parodi VA, Akpinar-Elci M. Interprofessional education involving didactic TeamSTEPPS and interactive healthcare simulation: a systematic review. J Interprof Care. 2018;14:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garbee DD, Paige J, Barrier K, Kozmenko V, Kozmenko L, Zamjahn J, et al. Interprofessional teamwork among students in simulated codes: a quasi-experimental study. Nurs Educ Perscpect. 2013;34(5):339–44.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Paige JT, Garbee DD, Kozmenko V, Yu Q, Kozmenko L, Yang T, et al. Getting a head start: high-fidelity, simulation-based operating room team training of interprofessional students. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(1):140–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Page-Cutrara K, Turk M. Impact of prebriefing on competency performance, clinical judgement and experience in simulation: an experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;48:78–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chmil JV. Prebriefing in simulation-based learning experiences. Nurse Educ. 2016;41(2):64–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodgers DL, Securro S, Pauley RD. The effect of high-fidelity simulation on educational outcomes in an advanced cardiovascular life support course. Simul Healthc. 2009;4(4):200–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Issenberg SB, McGagie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Founds SA, Zewe G, Scheuer LA. Development of high-fidelity simulated experiences for baccalaureate nursing students. J Prof Nurs. 2011;27(1):5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):183–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pywell MJ, Evgeniou E, Highway K, Pitt E, Estela CM. High fidelity, low cost moulage as a valid simulation tool to improve burns education. Burns. 2016;42(4):844–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ali AA, Miller ET. Effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing in health education: an integrative review. J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(1):14–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Harden RM, Crosby J. AMEE Guide No 20: the good teacher is more than a lecturer. The twelve roles of the teacher. Med Teach. 2000;24(4):334–47.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dieckmann P, MolinFriis S, Lippert A, Ostergaard D. The art and science of debriefing in simulation: ideal and practice. Med Teach. 2009;31(7):e287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Boet S, Bould MD, Bruppacher HR, Desjardins F, Chandra DB, Naik VN. Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(6):1377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(2):115–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts C, Newble D, Jolly B, Reed M, Hampton K. Assuring the quality of high-stakes undergraduate assessments of clinical competence. Med Teach. 2006;28(6):535–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50:1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane’s framework. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):560–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith AB, Lammers SE. Chapter 8.5: the ethics of simulation. In: Palaganas JC, Maxmorthy JC, Epps CA, Mancini ME, editors. Defining excellence in simulation programs. Philadelphia: Wolters/Kluwer; 2015. p. 593–603.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gaba DM. Simulations that are challenging to the psyche of participants: how much should we worry and about what? Simul Healthc. 2013;8(1):4–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    Nathan Gollehon

Authors
  1. Nathan Gollehon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Gollehon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CHSE, Children’s Hospital & Medical Center, Department of Education, Omaha, NE, USA

    Patricia K. Carstens

  2. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Family Medicine, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaga, NE, USA

    Paul Paulman

  3. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Family Medicine, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaga, NE, USA

    Audrey Paulman

  4. School of Biological Sciences - University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Marissa J. Stanton

  5. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    Brian M. Monaghan

  6. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    Douglas Dekker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gollehon, N. (2020). Scenario Design. In: Carstens, P., Paulman, P., Paulman, A., Stanton, M., Monaghan, B., Dekker, D. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Mobile Medical Simulation. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33660-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33660-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33659-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33660-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation