Constructing Safe Containers for Effective Learning: Vignettes of Breakdown in Psychological Safety During Simulated Scenarios

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10711)


This paper reports on work completed to date comparing a range of approaches to using simulation in industry settings. We document, share and compare across psychological and physical ‘safety’ dimensions in each of our domains, and describe how these are managed in different contexts. The concept of simulation as creating, and then existing, within a ‘safe container,’ a term is used as a metaphor for the context of simulation in action. In this paper we first reprise work undertaken during 2015 to develop baseline comparisons of key simulation factors across our disciplines/activities. Each approach is described separately, then we use the data to extract key points of similarity and difference. Next, we consider what ‘safety’ is in the context of a simulation in action and explore how users can learn with, and from, each other about selecting appropriate strategies to both support and challenge the notion of ‘safety’ in simulation-based learning contexts. The paper does not include a complete consideration of all uses of simulation, however our approach to collecting data, sharing and considering the implications of the emerging array of information is proving to be useful for developing a broader scope with which to consider the issues of safety and learning which are central to the uses of simulation that we are exploring.


Simulation Training Psychological safety 



At time of writing, all of the authors on this paper were members of the Human Dimensions in Simulation Committee of Simulation Australia.


  1. Edmondson, A.C.: Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In: West, M. (ed.) International Handbook of Organisational Teamwork, pp. 1–37, 15 March 2002Google Scholar
  2. Manuele, F.: Hierarchy of Controls: The Safety Decision Hierarchy. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  3. Naweed, A., Rainbird, S., Dance, C.: Are you fit to continue? Approaching rail systems thinking at the cusp of safety and the apex of performance. J. Saf. Sci. 76, 101–110 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Rudolph, J.W., Raemer, D.B., Simon, R.: Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation. Soc. Simul. Healthc. 9(6), 339–349 (2014). Scholar
  5. Stocker, M., Burmester, M., Allen, M.: Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: a debate for a conceptual framework. Biomed Central, 1–9 (2014). Accessed 15 Jan

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesia, Pain Medicine and Hyperbaric MedicineRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Appleton Institute for Behavioural ScienceCentral Queensland UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.FutureSearchTempeAustralia
  4. 4.Centre for Creative, Australian Capital TerritoryUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Real First Aid Pty Ltd.VictoriaAustralia
  6. 6.Royal New Zealand NavyAucklandNew Zealand
  7. 7.Building Leadership Simulation CentreVictoriaAustralia
  8. 8.Austin Health and Bendigo HealthVictoriaAustralia
  9. 9.QinetiQ Ltd.HampshireUK

Personalised recommendations