The Use of Hybrid Simulation in Paramedic Education: Paramedic Students' Views

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the views of paramedic program students about hybrid simulation (role-play and low-fidelity mannequin applications) training within the scope of vocational field courses. Material and Methods: The research is a single-group descriptive study. The research was conducted with 111 volunteer students studying in the paramedic program of a university in Turkey between 15.04.2022 and 25.05.2022. Students filled out the personal information form and hybrid simulation application evaluation forms as an online Google survey. Percentage, frequency, and chi-square test analyses were used to analyze the data. In all analyses, p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The majority of the students were positive in their evaluation of the hybrid simulation. When 1st and 2nd-year paramedic students were compared, 1st-year students reported a higher rate of positive statements in 7 statements (improving psychomotor/technical skills, reducing anxiety, facilitating the learning process, reviewing mistakes, creating awareness, reinforcing learning) than 2nd-year students (p<0.005). Conclusion: The results show that paramedic students consider hybrid simulation applications as an effective and efficient learning tool in their professional skills training.

Keywords

• Hybrid simulation
• occupational skills training
• paramedic student
• pre-graduation education
• student views

Paramedik Eğitiminde Hibrit Simülasyonun Kullanımı: Paramedik Öğrencilerinin Görüşleri

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, mesleki alan dersleri kapsamında hibrit simülasyon (role-play ve düşük gerçeklikli manken uygulamaları) eğitimi hakkında paramedik programı öğrencilerinin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırma tek gruplu tanımlayıcı bir çalışmadır. Araştırma, 15.04.2022- 25.05.2022 tarihleri arasında Türkiye'deki bir üniversitenin paramedik programında öğrenim gören 111 gönüllü öğrenci ile yürütülmüştür. Öğrenciler, kişisel bilgi formunu ve hibrit simülasyon uygulama değerlendirme formlarını çevrimiçi Google anketi olarak doldurmuşlardır. Verilerin analizinde yüzde, frekans ve ki-kare testi analizleri kullanılmıştır. Tüm analizlerde p<0,05 istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Öğrencilerin çoğunluğu hibrit simülasyonu değerlendirmelerinde olumlu görüş bildirmiştir. 1. ve 2. sınıf paramedik öğrencileri karşılaştırıldığında, 1. sınıf öğrencileri 7 ifadede (psikomotor/teknik becerileri geliştirme, kaygıyı azaltma, öğrenme sürecini kolaylaştırma, hataları gözden geçirme, farkındalık yaratma, öğrenmeyi pekiştirme) 2. sınıf öğrencilerine göre daha yüksek oranda olumlu ifadeler bildirdi (p<0,005). Sonuç: Sonuçlar, paramedik öğrencilerinin hibrit simülasyon uygulamalarını mesleki beceri eğitimlerinde etkili ve verimli bir öğrenme aracı olarak gördüklerini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Hibrit simülasyon
• mesleki beceri eğitimi
• paramedik öğrencisi
• mezuniyet öncesi eğitim
• öğrenci görüşleri

References

1. Hill L, Eaton G. Exploring paramedic professional identity. Br Paramed J. 2023;8(3):42-51.
2. Balaman F. Comparison of web-based distance education and traditional education within the scope of internet programming 2 course. Journal of Human and Social Sciences Research, 2018;7(2):1173-1200.
3. Bradley P. The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):254-62.
4. Issenberg SB, McGaghie 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.
5. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach. 2013;35(10):e1511-30.
6. Scalese RJ, Obeso VT, Issenberg SB. Simulation technology for skills training and competency assessment in medical education. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):46-9.
7. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J Med. 2009;76(4):330-43.
8. Okuda Y, Bond W, Bonfante G, McLaughlin S, Spillane L, Wang E, et al. National growth in simulation training within emergency medicine residency programs, 2003-2008. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1113-6.

9. So HY, Chen PP, Wong GKC, Chan TTN. Simulation in medical education. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2019;49(1):52-7.
10. Chiniara G, Cole G, Brisbin K, Huffman D, Cragg B, Lamacchia M, Norman D; Canadian network for simulation in healthcare, guidelines working group. Simulation in healthcare: a taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection. Med Teach. 2013;35(8):e1380-95.
11. Goolsby C, Deering S. Hybrid simulation during military medical student field training--a novel curriculum. Mil Med. 2013;178(7):742-5.
12. Goolsby CA, Goodwin TL, Vest RM. Hybrid simulation improves medical student procedural confidence during EM clerkship. Mil Med. 2014;179(11):1223-7.
13. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There's no such thing as "nonjudgmental" debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc. 2006;1(1):49-55.
14. Clapper T. C. Role play and simulation. The Education Digest. 2010;75(8), 39.
15. Ker J, Bradley P. Simulation in medical education. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice, 2010;1:164-180.
16. Hayden J. Use of simulation in nursing education: National surveyresults. J Nurs Regul 2010;1(3):52–57.
17. Uslu Y, Unver V, Karabacak U. Hybrid simulation in triage training. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2019;12(3):1626-37.
18. Unver V, Başak T, Tastan S, Gok K, Guvenç G, Demirtas A, et al. Analysis of the effects of high-fidelity simulation on nursing students’ perceptions of their preparedness for disasters. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;38:3-9.
19. Gündüz T, Arserim SK, Limoncu ME, Balcı Ö. Evaluation of education in first and emergency aid technician. J Prehospital Care, 2018;3(2):121-129.
20. Mercan NC. Problems experienced in the application areas of paramedic education final report. J Prehospital Care, 2017;2(2):127-134.
21. Williams B, Dousek S. The satisfaction with simulation experiencescale (SSES): a validation study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2012;2(3):74-80.
22. McKenna KD, Carhart E, Bercher D, Spain A, Todaro J, Freel J. Simulation use in paramedic education research (SUPER): a descriptive study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(3):432-40.
23. Wheeler B, Dippenaar E. The use of simulation as a teaching modality for paramedic education: a scoping review. Br Paramed J.2020;5(3):31-43.
24. Schubart JR, Erdahl L, Smith JS Jr, Purichia H, Kauffman GL, Kass RB. Use of breast simulators compared with standardized patients in teaching the clinical breast examination to medical students. J Surg Educ. 2012;69(3):416-22.
25. Yıldırım D, Özer Z, Kocaağalar E, Bölüktaş RP. Innovation in education: Use of simulation in health education. Journal of Knowledge Economy and Management. 2019;14(1):33-41.
26. Unver V, Basak T, Ayhan H, Cinar FI, Iyigun E, Tosun N, Tastan S, KöseG.Integrating simulation based learning into nursing education programs: Hybrid simulation. Technol Health Care. 2018;26(2):263-270.
27. Özdemir B. Use of hybrid simulation in nursing education. Turkish Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2023;6(3):86-93.
28. Levett-Jones T, McCoy M, Lapkin S, Noble D, Hoffman K, DempseyJ, et al. The development and psychometric testing of theSatisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(7):705-10.
29. Williams B, Abel C, Khasawneh E, Ross L, Levett-Jones T. Simulation experiences of paramedic students: a cross-cultural examination. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016;21(7):181-6.
30. Demir S, The effectiveness of online Visually Enhanced MentalSimulation in developing casualty triage and management skills of paramedic program students: A quasi-experimental research study. [master thesis]. Hacettepe University. 2020.
31. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual SafHealth Care. 2004;13 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i2-10.
32. Baptista RC, Paiva LA, Gonçalves RF, Oliveira LM, Maria de Fátima CR, Martins JC. Satisfaction and gains perceived by nursing students with medium and high-fidelity simulation: A randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;46:127-32.
33. Christiansen CR, Andersen JV, Dieckmann P. Comparing reflection levels between facilitator-led and student-led debriefing in simulation training for paramedic students. Adv Simul (Lond). 2023;8(1):30.
34. Ricketts B. The role of simulation for learning within pre-registration nursing education -A literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31:650-4.
35. Sarmasoğlu Ş, Dinç L, Elçin M. Nursing students' opinions on standard patients and models used in clinical skills training. Journalof Education and Research in Nursing. 2016;13(2):107-15.
36. Murdoch NL, Bottorff JL, McCullough D. Simulation education approaches to enhance collaborative healthcare: a best practicesreview. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2014;10(1):307-21.
37. Tosterud R, Hedelin B, Hall-Lord ML. Nursing students' perceptionsof high- and low-fidelity simulation used as learning methods. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13(4):262-70.
38. Arrogante O, González-Romero GM, López-Torre EM, Carrión-García L, Polo A. Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment in undergraduate nursing students: nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):92.
39. Olaussen C, Heggdal K, Tvedt CR. Elements in scenario‐based simulation associated with nursing students' self‐confidence and satisfaction: A cross‐sectional study. Nursing Open. 2020;7(1):170-9.
40. Roh YS, Lee WS, Chung HS, Park YM. The effects of simulation-based resuscitation training on nurses' self-efficacy and satisfaction. NurseEduc Today,, 2013;33(2):123-8.