Quality Assurance Framework SLSN

• Document No.

• Where is the Peer Review taking place? (Centre)

  Select GAPS SaIL Centre SLaM Kings College ESTH Kingston

  • GAPS
  • SaIL Centre
  • SLaM
  • Kings College
  • ESTH
  • Kingston

• Course Name

• Conducted on

  Date

• Peer Reviewer (Individual/s completing the quality assurance document)

• Simulation/Course Lead

• 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
  
  
  

• 1) Please indicate if the course had any pre-course reading materials?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 2) What type of material was included in the pre-course reading?

  Select Human factors literature Clinical literature (eg NICE standars, algorithm) Weblinks e-learning rescources Information about venue and timings Timetable Other

  • Human factors literature
  • Clinical literature (eg NICE standars, algorithm)
  • Weblinks
  • e-learning rescources
  • Information about venue and timings
  • Timetable
  • Other

• 3) Was an attendance record taken?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4) Was a timetable provided/on display

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• Image of timetable

  Media

• Did the course follow the timetable?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5) Was the necessary consent obtained for research/photography etc?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 1) What was the total number of faculty and facilitators on the course (excluding actors)?

• 1) Was there a technician?

• How many

• 2) Were there debriefers (of any level)

• How many

• 4) Were there novice debriefers

• How many

• 6) Were there advanced debriefers?

• How many

• 6) Were there expert debriefers?

• How many

• 8) Were there actor(s)

• How many

• 2) Did the course use faculty as:

  Select Patient voice Embedded participant Clinical response/escalation Role play (eg relative)

  • Patient voice
  • Embedded participant
  • Clinical response/escalation
  • Role play (eg relative)

• Did facutly attend a pre-course pre-brief?

  Yes

  No

• What did the pre-brief cover?

  Select Introductions Running order Role allocation Overview of scenarios Learning objectives Opportunity to ask questions Creating/maintaining a safe learning environment Other

  • Introductions
  • Running order
  • Role allocation
  • Overview of scenarios
  • Learning objectives
  • Opportunity to ask questions
  • Creating/maintaining a safe learning environment
  • Other

• 1) How many participants were booked onto the course?

• 2) How many participants attended the course?

• 3) Is the course interprofessional? (Two or more professions participating)

  Yes

  No

• 4) Which of the following professions were represented?

  Select Hospital doctor/trainee GP/trainee Nurse Midwife Physiotherapist Paramedic Health care assistant/nursing assistant Carer Undergraduate (med/nurse/AHP) Occupational therapist Dietician Physician assistant Social worker Security Porter Manager Wark clerk/admin Consultant nurse/AHP Consultant medical Other

  • Hospital doctor/trainee
  • GP/trainee
  • Nurse
  • Midwife
  • Physiotherapist
  • Paramedic
  • Health care assistant/nursing assistant
  • Carer
  • Undergraduate (med/nurse/AHP)
  • Occupational therapist
  • Dietician
  • Physician assistant
  • Social worker
  • Security
  • Porter
  • Manager
  • Wark clerk/admin
  • Consultant nurse/AHP
  • Consultant medical
  • Other

• 1) How may defined learning objectives did the course have?

• 2) Which simulation modality was being observed?

  Select Role play In situ/mobile sim Virtual reality Park task trainers High fidelity full scale human patient simulators Simulated patients/actors

  • 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?

  Very appropriate

  Appropriate

  Neutral

  Inappropriate

• 3) Space for comments on the choice of simulation modality for the stated learning objectives

• 4) Were any other teaching modalities employed as part of the course?

  Select Didactic sessions Skills workshops Group works Case based discussion Other

  • Didactic sessions
  • Skills workshops
  • Group works
  • Case based discussion
  • Other

• 5) What (if any) assessment was used for the course?

  Summative

  Formative

  NA

• 6) Please indicate the environment that the simulation took place in

  In-situ training

  Dedicated static simulation centre

  Classroom based room enhanced with props to recreate reality

• 7) Was there a designated and private area for debriefing?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

1a) The simulation orientation covered which of the following?

• 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

2a) The environmental orientation covered which of the following?

• Housekeeping and safety information (eg fire exits)

• orientation to the simulated environment

• orientation to manikins

• 2b) Space for comments on the environmental orientation

3) Professionalism: please indicate if the course introduction discussed covered the following:

• The need to demonstrate professional and ethical behaviour

• An expectation of received and providing constructive feedback

• An expectation of mutual respect

Psychological & physical safety

• 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?

  Yes, fully

  Yes, in part

  No

• 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?

  Yes, fully

  Yes, in part

  No

• 1) Did the participants receive a scenario brief

  Yes

  No

• In what form was the scenario brief?

  Select Verbally On paper Opportunity to ask questions

  • Verbally
  • On paper
  • Opportunity to ask questions

• 2) How many simulated scenarios were there

• 3) Were the scenarios relevant to the learners' level and previous experience?

  Yes

  No

• 4) Please indicate if the inclued of the embedded participant (plant) was:

  Select Positive Negative Neutral Distractor

  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral
  • Distractor

• 1) Is there a specific Debriefing Model or Approach?

  Select Advocacy with inquiry Diamond debrief PEARL Plus/Delta Team Gains 3D (Diffusing, Discovering & Deepening) Other No specific model used

  • Advocacy with inquiry
  • Diamond debrief
  • PEARL
  • Plus/Delta
  • Team Gains
  • 3D (Diffusing, Discovering & Deepening)
  • Other
  • No specific model used

• 2) Was the debriefing model on display for learners to refer to?

  Yes

  No

• 3) Were facilitators...

  Select Co-debriefing Single Debriefer Monitoring Group Discussion Facilitating Self-debrief Other

  • Co-debriefing
  • Single Debriefer
  • Monitoring Group Discussion
  • Facilitating Self-debrief
  • Other

• Please comment on the use of model

• 4) Was video playback used in the debrief?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 5) In general, did the debriefs allow space for participants to reflect on the simulation experience? Consider: <br>- skills (kinetic)<br>- knowledge (cognitive)<br>- feelings/interactions (affective)

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6) Were these reflections related back to relevant, real experiences?<br>- professionally<br>- clinical practice <br>- social interactions

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 7) How effective was the facilitator/s at using open ended questions to promote group interactions?

  Very Effective

  Effective

  Neutral

  Ineffective

• 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?

  No

  Occassionally

  Often

  Always

  N/A

• Which of the following themes were drawn from the discussion?

  Select Situational Awareness Learning from success and error Decision Making Leadership Teamworking Self care Verbal Communication Non-verbal Communication Hardware/Software interactions Appreciation of the person Others

  • Situational Awareness
  • Learning from success and error
  • Decision Making
  • Leadership
  • Teamworking
  • Self care
  • Verbal Communication
  • Non-verbal Communication
  • Hardware/Software interactions
  • Appreciation of the person
  • Others

• Were learners encouraged to describe how these relate back to clinical practise?

  No

  Occassionally

  Often

  Always

  N/A

• 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?

  Yes

  No

• 11) If participants shared personal experiences, was this contribution validated?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

1) Please indicate the type of evaluation utilised for the programme/training (Kirkpatrick Levels):

• 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?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 3) Were post-course knowledge/skills/attitudes measured?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4) Did the evaluation tool provide space for feedback about the course/facutly/environment?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

Latent errors

• 5) Where latent errors were identified during in-situ, were action points recorded to identify potential preventative strategies?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 6) Were latent errors graded using an appropriate system (eg, NPSA risk matrix)

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 1) Did the faculty debrief eachother formatively as any stage of the day?

  Yes

  No

• 2) Was a specific tool used?

  Yes

  No

• What tool was used?

• 3) What level was the debriefer of debriefs?

  Select Novice Advanced Expert

  • Novice
  • Advanced
  • Expert

• 4) Did the faculty debrief the whole course/review evaluations at the close of the day?

  Yes

  No

• Were changes/suggestions recorded?

  Yes

  No

• 1) Were any aspects/obectives of the course procedural skills?

  Yes

  No

• 2) Was there an appropriate specialist present (eg consultant surgeon)?

  Yes

  No

• 3) Was the equipment used to perform the procedures identical (or as close as possible) to the equipment used in clinical practice?

  Yes

  No

• 4) Candidate assessment - is the assessment of paricipants appropriate to the skill being taught? (see specific course curriculum/assessment documents)

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• Further comments about this section (procedural skills)

• 1) Is the course delivery standardised?

  Yes

  No

• 2) Is the course accredited in any format?

  Yes, fully

  Yes, in part

  No

• 3) Does the course have a course review board that meets annually?

  Yes

  No

  N/A

• 4) Does the course review board receive collated course information, included the particiapant's evaluations to enable improvements to be made to the course?

  Yes

  No

• 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

• Signature of Peer Reviewer (Once discussion has been completed)

  Sign

• Name of Course Lead

• Signature of Course Lead (Once discussion has been completed)

  Sign