The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations. DISCUSSION: Non-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed. Based on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.
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
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 · cited 1×
“cational programme in which they are embedded [1, 3, 31].”
BackgroundCook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hamstra, S. J. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1234 · Cited by 2,170
The future vision of simulation in health care
Gaba, D. M. (2004) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009878 · Cited by 1,934
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795 · cited 2×
“equipment, guidelines and the physical clinical environment [33].”
BackgroundA critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · Cited by 1,733
CONTEXT‐DEPENDENT MEMORY IN TWO NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS: ON LAND AND UNDERWATER
GODDEN, D. R., & BADDELEY, A. D. (1975) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x · Cited by 1,686
Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82
Motola, I., Devine, L. A., Chung, H. S., Sullivan, J. E., & Issenberg, S. B. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.818632 · Cited by 1,180
The role of assessment in competency-based medical education
Holmboe, E. S., Sherbino, J., Long, D. M., Swing, S. R., Frank, J. R., & Collaborators, F. T. I. C. (2010) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2010.500704 · Cited by 943
Cook, D. A., Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., Erwin, P. J., & Hatala, R. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.714886 · Cited by 709
A critical review of simulation‐based mastery learning with translational outcomes
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2014) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12391 · Cited by 638
Cited by
Salameh, B., Ayed, A., Kassabry, M., & Lasater, K. (2021) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000000938 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Sørensen, J. L., Østergaard, D., LeBlanc, V., Ottesen, B., Konge, L., Dieckmann, P., & Van der Vleuten, C.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2017-01-21
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-20
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2572086525
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 13.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12909-016-0838-3
- The paper
- Sørensen, J. L., Østergaard, D., LeBlanc, V., Ottesen, B., Konge, L., Dieckmann, P., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2017). Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0838-3
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.