A narrative synthesis of learners’ experiences of barriers and facilitators related to effective interprofessional simulation

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of search process.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies

Paper	Year	Country	Design	Participants	Evaluation/Qualitative Methodology
Egenberg, Krlsen, Massay, Kilmaro & Bru	2017	Tanzania	Interprofessional simulation (High Fidelity (HF) simulator and simulation-based team training [SBTT])	42 (Midwives, Doctors, Medical Attendants)	Focus Group Discussions
Keller, Eggenberger Belkowitz, Sarsekeyeva, Zito	2013	USA	Interprofessional Simulation team training (TeamSTEPPS)	45 medical students and 50 nursing students	Focus Group Discussions
King, Conrad & Ahmed	2013	USA	High Fidelity, Interprofessional simulation	34 (20 nurses, 6 medical, 8 respiratory)	Open Response Qualitative questionnaire
Koo, Layson-Wolf, Brandt, Hammersla Idzik, Rocafort, Tran, Wilkerson & Windemuth	2014	USA	Interprofessional simulation-based team training	30 Nurse practitioners and pharmacy students	Focus Groups and conventional content analysis
Kyrkjebo, Brattebo & Smith-Strom	2009	Norway	Interprofessional simulation-based team training	12 (Nurses and Medical students)	Focus Group Discussions
Leonard, Shuhaibar & Chen	2010	USA	Interprofessional HF Simulation	48 (Nurses interviewed-trained with med students)	Open Response Qualitative questionnaire
Reime, Johnsgaard, Kvam, Aarflot, Breivik, Engeberg & Brattebo	2016	Norway	Simulation based team training	(184px) 61 Med Students, 123 nurses	Focus Group Interviews
Severson, Maxson, Wroblieski & Dozois	2014	USA	Simulation based team training	28 (19 nurses, 9 surgeons)	Descriptive qualitative method (facilitator-led debriefing)
Treadwell, Van Rooyen, Havenga & Theron	2014	South Africa	Simulated patients and high-fidelity simulator	135 (96 medical students, 39 nursing students)	Video-recorded debriefing and open response qualitative questionnaire
Van Schaik, Plant & O’Brien	2015	USA	Pediatric Simulation based team training	19 Medical residents (training with nurses)	Semi-structured interviews
Watters, Reedy, Ross, Morgan, Hanslip, Jaye	2015	UK	Intermediate Fidelity Clinical Simulated Scenario	155 nurses/midwives along with 156 doctors	Open Response Qualitative questionnaire
Wehbe-Janek	2012	USA	Simulation based team training	141 nurses (training with doctors)	Open Response Qualitative questionnaire
Weller, Frengley, Torrie, Webster, Tomlinson & Henderson	2012	New Zealand	Multidisciplinary critical care full body high fidelity simulator	29 (15 doctors, 14 nurses)	Semi-structured interviews

Table 2. Number of studies per level and category

Level	Process	Outcomes	Interprofessional dynamics
Facilitators for effective learning	9 (Koo et al., 2014; Wehbe-Janek et al., 2012; Leonard et al., 2010; Egenberg et al., 2017; Reime et al., 2016; King et al., 2013; Watters et al., 2015; Treadwell et al., 2014; Severson et al., 2014)	7 (Leonard et al., 2010; Egenberg et al., 2017; Weller et al., 2012; King et al., 2013; Treadwell et al., 2014; Watters et al., 2015; Severson et al., 2014)	13 (King et al., 2013 Koo et al., 2014; Wehbe-Janek et al., 2012; Watters et al., 2015; Keller et al., 2013; Leonard et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2012; Egenberg et al., 2017; Van Schaik et al., 2011; Reime et al., 2016; Keller et al., 2013; Treadwell et al., 2014; Kyrkjebo et al., 2006; Severson et al., 2014)
Barriers to effective learning	2 (Kyrkjebo et al., 2009; Koo et al., 2014)	0	3 (Van Schaik et al., 2011; Keller et al., 2013; Treadwell et al., 2014)
Total	11 (Koo et al., 2014; Wehbe-Janek et al., 2012; Leonard et al., 2010; Egenberg et al., 2017; Reime et al., 2016; King et al., 2013; Watters et al., 2015; Treadwell et al., 2014; Severson et al., 2014; Kyrkjebo et al., 2006)	7 (Leonard et al., 2010; Egenberg et al., 2017; Weller et al., 2012; King et al., 2013; Treadwell et al., 2014; Watters et al., 2015; Severson et al., 2014)	16 (King et al., 2013; Koo et al., 2014; Wehbe-Janek et al., 2012; Watters et al., 2015; Keller et al., 2013; Leonard et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2012; Egenberg et al., 2017; Van Schaik et al., 2011; Reime et al., 2016 Keller et al., 2013;Treadwell et al., 2014; Kyrkjebo et al., 2006; Severson et al., 2014)

Table 3. Key barriers and facilitators identified

Themes	Facilitators	Barriers
Characteristics of the Simulation Learning Process	Realism	Lack of realist
	Psychological safety	Preparation for simulation
	Ability to make mistakes
	Engagement with debriefing
Outcomes of interprofessional simulation	Skill level
	Effective leadership
Interprofessional dynamics	Interprofessional communication	Debriefing not multidisciplinary
	Role clarity	Professional hierarchy
	Shared leadership
	Interprofessional co-operation

Koo L, Layson-Wolf C, Brandt N, Hammersla M, Idzik S, Rocafort PT, Tran D, Wilkerson RG, Windemuth B. 2014. Qualitative evaluation of a standardized patient clinical simulation for nurse practitioner and pharmacy students. Nurse Education in Practice. Nov 1;14(6):740–746.

 Google Scholar

Wehbe-Janek, H., Lenzmeier, C. R., Ogden, P. E., Lambden, M. P., Sanford, P., Herrick, J., Song, J., Pliego, J. F., & Colbert, C. Y. (2012). Nurses’ perceptions of simulation-based interprofessional training program for rapid response and code blue events. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 27(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0b013e3182303c95

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leonard, B., Shuhaibar, E. L., & Chen, R. (2010). Nursing student perceptions of intraprofessional team education using high-fidelity simulation. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 628–631. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100730-06

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Egenberg, S., Karlsen, B., Massay, D., Kimaro, H., & Bru, L. E. (2017). “No patient should die of PPH just for the lack of training!” Experiences from multi-professional simulation training on postpartum hemorrhage in northern Tanzania: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0957-5

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reime, M. H., Johnsgaard, T., Kvam, F. I., Aarflot, M., Breivik, M., Engeberg, J. M., & Brattebø, G. (2016). Simulated settings; powerful arenas for learning patient safety practices and facilitating transference to clinical practice. A mixed method study. Nurse Education in Practice, 21, 75–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.10.003

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

King, A. E. A., Conrad, M., & Ahmed, R. A. (2013). Improving collaboration among medical, nursing and respiratory therapy students through interprofessional simulation. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(3), 269–271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.730076

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Watters, C., Reedy, G., Ross, A., Morgan, N. J., Handslip, R., & Jaye, P. (2015). Does interprofessional simulation increase self-efficacy: a comparative study. BMJ open, 5(1).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Treadwell, I., Van Rooyen, M., Havenga, H., & Theron, M. (2014). The effect of an interprofessional clinical simulation on medical students. African Journal of Health Professions Education, 6(1), 3–5. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajhpe/article/view/104893

 Google Scholar

Severson, M. A., Maxson, P. M., Wrobleski, D. S., & Dozois, E. J. (2014). Simulation-based team training and debriefing to enhance nursing and physician collaboration. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 45(7), 297–303. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20140620-03

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weller, J., Frengley, R., Torrie, J., Webster, C. S., Tomlinson, S., Henderson, K., Tomlinson, S., Henderson, K., & Henderson, K. (2012). Change in attitudes and performance of critical care teams after a multi-disciplinary simulation-based intervention. International Journal of Medical Education, 3, 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5019.6b01

 Google Scholar

Keller, K. B., Eggenberger, T. L., Belkowitz, J., Sarsekeyeva, M., & Zito, A. R. (2013). Implementing successful interprofessional communication opportunities in health care education: a qualitative analysis. International journal of medical education, 4, 253.

 Google Scholar

Van Schaik, S. M., Plant, J., Diane, S., Tsang, L., & O’sullivan, P. (2011). Interprofessional team training in pediatric resuscitation: A low-cost, in situ simulation program that enhances self-efficacy among participants. Clinical Pediatrics, 50(9), 807–815. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922811405518

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kyrkjebø, J. M., Brattebø, G., & Smith-Strøm, H. (2006). Improving patient safety by using interprofessional simulation training in health professional education. Journal of interprofessional care, 20(5), 507–516.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All papers/data included in this review are available online.