Audit

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?

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

3) Was an attendance record taken?

4) Was a timetable provided/on display

Image of timetable

Did the course follow the timetable?

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

Faculty/Facilitators

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:

Did facutly attend a pre-course pre-brief?

What did the pre-brief cover?

Participants

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)

4) Which of the following professions were represented?

Educational Activities and Learning Environment

1) How may defined learning objectives did the course have?
2) Which simulation modality was being observed?

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

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

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

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?

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?

Scenarios

1) Did the participants receive a scenario brief

In what form was the scenario brief?
2) How many simulated scenarios were there

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

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

Debrief Details and Psychological safety

1) Is there a specific Debriefing Model or Approach?

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

3) Were facilitators...

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?
- professionally
- 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?

Which of the following themes were drawn from the discussion?

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

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?

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

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

Latent errors

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)

Faculty/Course Debrief

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

2) Was a specific tool used?

What tool was used?

3) What level was the debriefer of debriefs?

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)

Course Governance

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?

Summary Report

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)

Name of Course Lead

Signature of Course Lead (Once discussion has been completed)
Please note that this checklist is a hypothetical example and provides basic information only. It is not intended to take the place of, among other things, workplace, health and safety advice; medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment; or other applicable laws. You should also seek your own professional advice to determine if the use of such checklist is permissible in your workplace or jurisdiction.