Welcome to the South London Simulation Network Quality Assurance Peer Reviewer Form
The standards framework and guidance are not a mandatory process but centres and individual faculty are invited to utilise the tools for self and peer assessment and quality assurance purposes. The SLSN Standards framework reflect the ASPiH Standards Framework (Nov 2016) but this form has been created to help chart and record activities.
Peer review visits are intended to be developmental with the opportunity to:
Compare operational & governance systems
Compare design and delivery of simulation courses against standards identified as best practice
Exchange good practice, ideas and processes
Consider courses utilising any aspect of Simulation Based Education (at all levels of fidelity)
For more information: www.southlondonsim.com/resources
Pre -course Info and Course Admin
1) Please indicate if the course had any pre-course reading materials?
- Human factors literature
- Clinical literature (eg NICE standars, algorithm)
- e-learning rescources
- Information about venue and timings
3) Was an attendance record taken?
4) Was a timetable provided/on display
Did the course follow the timetable?
5) Was the necessary consent obtained for research/photography etc?
1) Was there a technician?
2) Were there debriefers (of any level)
4) Were there novice debriefers
6) Were there advanced debriefers?
6) Were there expert debriefers?
8) Were there actor(s)
- Patient voice
- Embedded participant
- Clinical response/escalation
- Role play (eg relative)
Did facutly attend a pre-course pre-brief?
- Running order
- Role allocation
- Overview of scenarios
- Learning objectives
- Opportunity to ask questions
- Creating/maintaining a safe learning environment
3) Is the course interprofessional? (Two or more professions participating)
- Hospital doctor/trainee
- Health care assistant/nursing assistant
- Undergraduate (med/nurse/AHP)
- Occupational therapist
- Physician assistant
- Social worker
- Wark clerk/admin
- Consultant nurse/AHP
- Consultant medical
Educational Activities and Learning Environment
- Role play
- In situ/mobile sim
- Virtual reality
- Park task trainers
- High fidelity full scale human patient simulators
- Simulated patients/actors
How appropriate were the simulation modalities to the learning objectives?
3) Space for comments on the choice of simulation modality for the stated learning objectives
- Didactic sessions
- Skills workshops
- Group works
- Case based discussion
5) What (if any) assessment was used for the course?
6) Please indicate the environment that the simulation took place in
7) Was there a designated and private area for debriefing?
Preparation/pre-briefing of learners for the course
intro to other participants (e.g. icebreaker)
intro to faculty and roles
course aims and objectives
modality being used
the modality of simulation within human factors (exploring individual and team performance)
the debrief model intended for use
use of social media
1b) Space for comments on the simulation orientation
Housekeeping and safety information (eg fire exits)
orientation to the simulated environment
orientation to manikins
2b) Space for comments on the environmental orientation
The need to demonstrate professional and ethical behaviour
An expectation of received and providing constructive feedback
An expectation of mutual respect
4) Did the facilitator indicate that simluation is used as a safe learning environment which permits mistakes and/or whether the course was being used as an assessment?
5) Did the facilitator indicate that the debrief formats are designed to allow a safe environment for participants to share thoughts/feelings/perceptions wihtou the risk of retribution or embarrassment?
1) Did the participants receive a scenario brief
- On paper
- Opportunity to ask questions
3) Were the scenarios relevant to the learners' level and previous experience?
Debrief Details and Psychological safety
- Advocacy with inquiry
- Diamond debrief
- Team Gains
- 3D (Diffusing, Discovering & Deepening)
- No specific model used
2) Was the debriefing model on display for learners to refer to?
- Single Debriefer
- Monitoring Group Discussion
- Facilitating Self-debrief
Please comment on the use of model
4) Was video playback used in the debrief?
5) In general, did the debriefs allow space for participants to reflect on the simulation experience? Consider:
- skills (kinetic)
- knowledge (cognitive)
- feelings/interactions (affective)
6) Were these reflections related back to relevant, real experiences?
- clinical practice
- social interactions
7) How effective was the facilitator/s at using open ended questions to promote group interactions?
8) In the situation where clinical or professional performance is identified as a concern, please indicate how the faculty gives formative feedback to individuls (leave blank if NA)
9) Was there opportunity for discussion of specific non-technical skills/human factors during the debrief sessions?
- Situational Awareness
- Learning from success and error
- Decision Making
- Self care
- Verbal Communication
- Non-verbal Communication
- Hardware/Software interactions
- Appreciation of the person
Were learners encouraged to describe how these relate back to clinical practise?
10) Did you feel the facilitators maintained a safe learning environment for participants to share thoughts, feeling and perceptions without the risk of retribution or embarrassment?
11) If participants shared personal experiences, was this contribution validated?
Course Evaluation Forms
Reaction of student - what they thought and felt about the training
Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
Behaviour - extent of behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application
Result - the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee's/participant's performance
2) Were pre-course knowledge/skills/attitudes measured?
3) Were post-course knowledge/skills/attitudes measured?
4) Did the evaluation tool provide space for feedback about the course/facutly/environment?
5) Where latent errors were identified during in-situ, were action points recorded to identify potential preventative strategies?
6) Were latent errors graded using an appropriate system (eg, NPSA risk matrix)
1) Did the faculty debrief eachother formatively as any stage of the day?
2) Was a specific tool used?
What tool was used?
4) Did the faculty debrief the whole course/review evaluations at the close of the day?
Were changes/suggestions recorded?
Procedural Skills Courses (only)
1) Were any aspects/obectives of the course procedural skills?
2) Was there an appropriate specialist present (eg consultant surgeon)?
3) Was the equipment used to perform the procedures identical (or as close as possible) to the equipment used in clinical practice?
4) Candidate assessment - is the assessment of paricipants appropriate to the skill being taught? (see specific course curriculum/assessment documents)
Further comments about this section (procedural skills)
1) Is the course delivery standardised?
2) Is the course accredited in any format?
3) Does the course have a course review board that meets annually?
4) Does the course review board receive collated course information, included the particiapant's evaluations to enable improvements to be made to the course?
Before exporting this document (Creating a PDF), it is advised that the comments and observations are reviewed collaboratively. The Questions identified in this report are intended to create a Professional Discussion about quality and educational allignment to the desired learning objectives. Comments can be edited prior to signature and completion of this document.
Recommendations relating to core standard 1: SBE provider organisational leadership (i.e. facilities, technology, equipment, administration)
Recommendations relating to core standard 2: Programme development, assessment and in situ utilisation (i.e. LNA, pre-brief, course objectives/design/evaluation/assessment, debrief of debriefs)
Recommendations relating to core standard 3: Faculty and personnel (i.e. number, expert faculty presence, embedded participants, maintenance of psychological safety, faculty training)
Name of Peer Reviewer
Name of Course Lead