The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deepening the Theoretical Foundations of Patient Simulation as Social Practice
Abstract
Simulation is a complex social endeavor, in which human beings interact with each other, a simulator, and other technical devices. The goal-oriented use for education, training, and research depends on an improved conceptual clarity about simulation realism and related terms. The article introduces concepts into medical simulation that help to clarify potential problems during simulation and foster its goal-oriented use. The three modes of thinking about reality by Uwe Laucken help in differentiating different aspects of simulation realism (physical, semantical, phenomenal). Erving Goffman's concepts of primary frames and modulations allow for analyzing relationships between clinical cases and simulation scenarios. The as-if concept by Hans Vaihinger further qualifies the differences between both clinical and simulators settings and what is important when helping participants engage in simulation. These concepts help to take the social character of simulation into account when designing and conducting scenarios. The concepts allow for improved matching of simulation realism with desired outcomes. It is not uniformly the case that more (physical) realism means better attainment of educational goals. Although the article concentrates on mannequin-based simulations that try to recreate clinical cases to address issues of crisis resource management, the concepts also apply or can be adapted to other forms of immersive or simulation techniques.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research
Engeström, Y. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139814744 · Cited by 4,991
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
Defining the 'field at a given time.'
Lewin, K. (1943) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0062738 · Cited by 1,019
Cited by
Establishing a Safe Container for Learning in Simulation: The Role of the Presimulation Briefing
Rudolph, J. W., Raemer, D. B., & Simon, R. (2014) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000047 · Cited by 915
Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis
Kim, J., Park, J.-H., & Shin, S. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7 · Cited by 614
The 3D Model of Debriefing: Defusing, Discovering, and Deepening
Zigmont, J. J., Kappus, L. J., & Sudikoff, S. N. (2011) · Seminars in Perinatology · doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2011.01.003 · Cited by 345
Sørensen, J. L., Østergaard, D., LeBlanc, V., Ottesen, B., Konge, L., Dieckmann, P., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2017) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0838-3 · Cited by 267
Self-citationObserver roles that optimise learning in healthcare simulation education: a systematic review
O’Regan, S., Molloy, E., Watterson, L., & Nestel, D. (2016) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-015-0004-8 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Dieckmann, P., Gaba, D., & Rall, M.
- Venue
- Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 183-193
- ISSN
- 1559-2332 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2317484485
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deepening the Theoretical Foundations of Patient Simulation as Social Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sih.0b013e3180f637f5
- The paper
- Dieckmann, P., Gaba, D., & Rall, M. (2007). Deepening the Theoretical Foundations of Patient Simulation as Social Practice. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0b013e3180f637f5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.