Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A stepwise model for simulation-based curriculum development for clinical skills, a modification of the six-step approach

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Despite the rapid growth in the use of simulation in health professions education, courses vary considerably in quality. Many do not integrate efficiently into an overall school/program curriculum or conform to academic accreditation requirements. Moreover, some of the guidelines for simulation design are specialty specific.

Study design

We designed a model that integrates best practices for effective simulation-based training and a modification of Kern et al.’s 6-step approach for curriculum development. We invited international simulation and health professions education experts to complete a questionnaire evaluating the model. We reviewed comments and suggested modifications from respondents and reached consensus on a revised version of the model.

Results

We recruited 17 simulation and education experts. They expressed a consensus on the seven proposed curricular steps: problem identification and general needs assessment, targeted needs assessment, goals and objectives, educational strategies, individual assessment/feedback, program evaluation, and implementation. We received several suggestions for descriptors that applied the steps to simulation, leading to some revisions in the model.

Conclusion

We have developed a model that integrates principles of curriculum development and simulation design that is applicable across specialties. Its use could lead to high-quality simulation courses that integrate efficiently into an overall curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gaba D (2004) The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Health Care 13(Suppl 1):i2–i10. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009878

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB (2011) Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 86(6):706–711

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosen KR (2008) The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care 23(2):157–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ (2010) A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ 44:50–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–463

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. BMJ 91:146–150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Schroeder TV, Ottesen BS (2009) Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomized control trial. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1802

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas MP (2013) The role of simulation in the development of technical competence during surgical training: a literature review. Int J Med Educ 4:48–58

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gallagher AG, Seymour NE, Jordan-Black JA, Bunting BP, McGlade K, Satava RM (2013) Prospective, randomized assessment of transfer of training (ToT) and transfer effectiveness ratio (TER) of virtual reality simulation training for laparoscopic skill acquisition. Ann Surg 257(6):1025–1031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bailey RW, Imbembo AL, Zucker KA (1991) Establishment of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy training program. Am Surg 57:231–236

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mertz H, Gautam S (2004) The learning curve for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 59:33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Darzi A (2007) Framework for systematic training and assessment of technical skills. J Am Coll Surg 204:697–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McClusky DA, Smith CD (2008) Design and development of a surgical skills simulation curriculum. World J Surg 32:171–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stefanidis D, Heniford BT (2009) The formula for a successful laparoscopic skills curriculum. Arch Surg 144:77–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zevin B, Levy JS, Satava RM, Grantcharov TP (2012) A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 215(4):580–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiniara G, Cole G, Brisbin K, Huffman D, Cragg B, Lamacchia M, Norman D (2013) 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 35(8):e1380–e1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT (2009) Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  18. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese R (2005) Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 27(1):10–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R (2013) Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach 35(1):e867–e898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Motola I, Luke AD, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB (2013) Simulation in health care education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No.82. Med Teach 35(10):e1511–e1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paskins Z, Peile E (2010) Final year medical students’ views on simulation-based teaching: a comparison with the best evidence medical education systematic review. Med Teach 32(7):569–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dreyfus SE, Dreyfus HL (1980) A five staged model of mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Storming Media, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery. Available at: http://www.flsprogram.org/. Accessed 12 Jun 2014

  24. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in general surgery, effective: January 1, 2012, Section II D (2), p 10. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/440_general_surgery_01012008_07012012.pdf. Accessed 12 Jun 2014

  26. American Board of Surgery (ABS) Booklet of Information for Surgery, pp 12, 22. Available at: http://home.absurgery.org/xfer/BookletofInfo-Surgery.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2014

  27. American College of Surgeons Accredited Education Institutes. Available at: http://facs.org/education/accreditationprogram/index.html. Accessed 12 Jun 2014

  28. Sachdeva AK, Pellegrini CA, Johnson KA (2008) Support for simulation-based surgical education through American College of Surgeons—Accredited Education Institutes. World J Surg 32:196–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Go to standards and publications, then standards. Available at: www.lcme.org. Accessed 12 Jun 2014

  30. World Federation of Medical Education (2012) WFME global standards for quality improvement in basic medical education (BME). Available at: http://wfme.org/standards/bme/78-new-version-2012-quality-improvement-in-basic-medical-education-english/file. Accessed 27 November 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the international simulation and health professions experts who evaluated this template for their meticulous review and valuable comments. Thanks are due to the following ASSET experts: Richard Angelo, Howard Champion, Anthony Gallagher, Jeffrey S. Levy, Guy J. Maddern, Robert A. Pedowitz, Judith Riess, Marshall Smith, Hooman Soltanian, Dimitrios Stefanidis, Gregory J. Wiet and Sterling Williams and the Medical Education experts: Zubair Amin and Hossam Hamdy. This work was funded by the College of Medicine Research Centre, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Disclosures

The authors Drs. Nehal Khamis, Richard Satava, Sami Al-Nassar and David Kern have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Education Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2925(45), Riyadh, 11461, Saudi Arabia

    Nehal N. Khamis

  2. Medical Education and Pathology Departments, College of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

    Nehal N. Khamis

  3. Surgery Department, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Richard M. Satava

  4. Medical Education and Thoracic Surgery Departments, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Sami A. Alnassar

  5. General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    David E. Kern

Authors
  1. Nehal N. Khamis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Satava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sami A. Alnassar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David E. Kern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nehal N. Khamis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khamis, N.N., Satava, R.M., Alnassar, S.A. et al. A stepwise model for simulation-based curriculum development for clinical skills, a modification of the six-step approach. Surg Endosc 30, 279–287 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4206-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4206-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation