SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı

High Fidelity Simulation: From Simulation to Debrief, Assessing Leadership and Followership Management

Lucien TISSERAND
Pages
134–155
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This analysis across these multiple settings involved helps us understand how practitioners make use of the HFS device in order to assess their organizational practices

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper deals with high fidelity simulation (HFS) in health care.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A computerized mannequin plays the role of a patient, and this device allows medical teams to train for different scenarios.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This analysis across these multiple settings involved helps us understand how practitioners make use of the HFS device in order to assess their organizational practices
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper deals with high fidelity simulation (HFS) in health care. A computerized mannequin plays the role of a patient, and this device allows medical teams to train for different scenarios. For the trainees, the pedagogical aim is to learn "teamwork" or “communication” skills. The purpose of the article is to present this device as the unfolding of a complex practice: the scenario being played, the simulation being observed, and finally the debriefing of the session. The corpus is constructed around the task of preparing for an intubation. We will detail the sequential achievement of this task in the simulation room, more specifically the practical problem of passing an object between two participants. We will then present how, in the meantime in the control room, trainers notice an issue. We will then see how this event is referred to during the debriefing phase. This analysis across these multiple settings involved helps us understand how practitioners make use of the HFS device in order to assess their organizational practices

🔖

Cite This Article

TISSERAND, L. (2022). High Fidelity Simulation: From Simulation to Debrief, Assessing Leadership and Followership Management. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: Özel Sayı, 134–155. https://ajindex.com/articles/531721

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Cooper, J. B., & Taqueti, V. R. (2004). A brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), i11–i18. Depperman, A. (2014). "The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre", In Haddington et al. (Eds.) Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, Amsterdam (pp. 247–281.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.
  2. Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N. & Patey, R. (2003). Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): Evaluation of a behavioural marker system. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 90, 580-588.
  3. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.) A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Oxford: Blackwell. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191– 1/4(2012), 257–286.
  4. Gordon, L. J., Rees, C. E., Ker, J. S., & Cleland, J. (2015). Leadership and followership in the healthcare workplace: exploring medical trainees’ experiences through narrative inquiry. BMJ Open, 5(12), e008898. Haddington, P. Keisanen, P. Mondada, L. Nevile, M. (2014). Towards multiactivity as a social and interactional phenomenon, In (Haddington et al. eds.) Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, Amsterdam (pp. 3–32.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heritage, J., & Maynard, D.W. (Eds.) (2006). Communication in Medical Care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Hindmarsh, J., Hyland, L., & Banerjee, A. (2014). Work to make simulation work: “Realism”, instructional correction and the body in training. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 247–269.
  6. Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2002). The tacit order of teamwork: Collaboration and Embodied Conduct in Anesthesia. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 139–164.
  7. Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaest