Power and adolescent simulated patients: A qualitative exploration

Children and young people as simulated patients: recommendations for safe engagement

Adult simulated patients (SPs) are now embedded in health professions education, prompting the development of practice standards. The comparatively sparse involvement of children and young people as simulated participants in education may account for the absence of standards to underpin their safe practice. Research suggests that children and young people who fulfil simulated participant roles have specific requirements not covered by existing standards. This paper offers recommendations specific to the safe engagement of simulated participants in health professions education that align with published guidelines for working with adult simulated patients. These recommendations include: Practical considerations, safe work environment, scenario development, training for role portrayal, feedback & completion of assessment instruments, parental responsibility and ethical considerations. We hope these recommendations are valuable for anyone working with children or young people in simulated participant roles.

Simulated patient perceptions of telesimulation education

Perspectives of simulated participants (SPs) as stakeholders in simulation education are under-represented. With rapid increase in virtual education and anticipation of post-pandemic continuation it is important to establish best practices. This work aims to determine SP perceptions of telesimulation.

In-depth semi-structured interviews determined SP opinions of participation in telesimulation. Thematic analysis utilizing an inductive and semantic iterative coding process was performed. SPs completed a survey of their demographics, experience and prior SP training, both virtual and in-person.

Data sufficiency occurred after 16 interviews (10 females/6 males; 15 White/1 Black/African American). Median age was 56 years (range 37–72). Median number of in-person simulation experiences was 100 (range 6–300) and 27 telesimulations (range 3–100). Thematic analysis identified five themes: (1) students behave differently (distracted, less professional, less prepared for ‘real life’, less nervous), (2) my performance – some things are easier and some harder (increased cognitive load, coming out of role more, difficulties with non-verbal aspect, more standardized performance), (3) it’s harder to connect with learners (different cues, less of a personal connection), (4) safety for all in telesimulation (as psychologically safe as in-person, appreciate opportunity to continue to educate/work, personal safety), (5) future applications of telesimulation (telehealth training, better access to education for learners).

SP perceptions of telesimulation education revealed appreciation of the educational modality and identified potential benefit in telehealth education. SPs were concerned about learner participation, professionalism and resultant preparation for clinical practice. Incorporating SP feedback into telesimulation education may be important to ensure high quality.