Acceptability, technological feasibility and educational value of remotely facilitated simulation based training: A scoping review

ABSTRACT

Although remote teaching and learning is not new to medical education, the Covid-19 pandemic has heightened its importance as a mode of education delivery. This scoping review aims to provide a narrative/iterative summary of the current literature in assessing the acceptability, educational value and technological feasibility of remotely facilitated (RF) simulation-based training (SBT) – ‘telesimulation’, for medical students and facilitators. The review was conducted using the method described by Arksey and O’Malley. A systematic process was followed to search multiple electronic databases supplemented with a general internet search to identify any relevant grey literature. The search strategy was developed in collaboration with medical students and educators familiar with SBT. Nine articles were identified as fitting the review inclusion criteria. The results indicated that RF SBT was positively viewed by participants but may not be viewed as equivalent to locally facilitated SBT. Participants of RF SBT felt confident to deal with common acute scenarios, believed it could expand their knowledge and skills and in turn would improve patient care in the clinical setting. Facilitators found RF SBT to be technologically feasible, promoting the acquisition of desired learning outcomes. Future research should assess the reaction to, and learning acquired during RF SBT, particularly, the perception and attitudes of facilitators. A clear research gap was identified in literature assessing the role of RF SBT in behavioural change and improved clinical care outcomes. Addresing these gaps will clarify the role of RF SBT in medical education.

KEYWORDS:

• Simulation-based training
• remotely facilitated training
• locally facilitated training
• telesimulation
• medical education

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding received through the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training (RHMT) program grant of the Australian Government to make this work possible and thank Mr William MacAskill for his assistance in producing a revised version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

Sources of funding: Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training (RHMT) program grant