Ryerson University Virtual Healthcare Experience Review

Summary

Feature

Comments

Cost

Free

Target learner

Pre-licensure nursing students and registered nurses.

Format

Interactive videos of simulated participants in actual environments in-patient, out-patient and home settings.

Implementation

It is easy to navigate and requires little instruction for the user.

Noteworthy

Faculty will be required to supplement this product to meet the INACSL Standards of Best Practice

Website

https://de.ryerson.ca/games/nursing/hospital/

Date of Review

August 18, 2020

Characteristics

#

Content

Comments

1

Emergency

Triage of three patients

1

Pediatrics

Ten year old post-op

1

Medical-Surgical

Involving interdisciplinary team members

4

Maternal & Child

Prenatal, labor and delivery, postpartum and newborn

1

Mental Health

Home visit

1

Quality Improvement

Interdisciplinary discharge policy

Considerations

Comments

X

Evidence of when the content has been or will be updated

X

Health record (electronic or otherwise) integrated into scenarios?

Includes psycho-social components?

Cost

Pricing and Terms

Comments

Free

Individual Cost Per Student

Site License Option

Simultaneous Use for Students

Contracts Required

Contract Length/ Options

Access Period

Module can be accessed more than once

Payment Options

Refund Policy Available

Demo

Question

Comments

Is a demo available?

Is a trial period available?

Is the vendor’s demo required to obtain scenario objectives?

Equipment

Feature

Comments

Internet access required?

Web-browser based?

Product website optimized for viewing on a smartphone?

Not yet evaluated

Product website optimized for viewing on a tablet?

X

Mobile app available?

Does the product work without special software?

Does the product work without special equipment?

Are there internet speed requirements?

Not specified

Accessibility Standards Compliant?

Not specified

Standards of Best Practice

Based on Healthcare Simulation Standard of Best PracticeTM: Simulation Design[1][2][3][4]

Product review evaluation includes criteria marked with an asterisk (*.) Unmarked criteria are important to incorporate as part of a complete simulation-based experience (SEB).

Criterion 1: Consultation*

In designing SBEs, important to use content experts and those knowledgeable in simulation education, pedagogy and best practice.

Objectives

Comments

Was a content expert used in the development process of the simulation?

Criterion 2: Needs Assessment

Faculty conduct a needs assessment, identify learning gaps, and select a simulation to meet their learners’ needs. May include a gap analysis, SWOT, survey results from stakeholders, outcome data from testing or standards from certifying bodies, or practice guidelines.

Criterion 3: Measurable Objectives*

Objectives are necessary to identify learning outcomes. Broad objectives reflect the purpose, and specific objectives measure performance.

Objectives

Comments

Are learning objectives provided?

Are learning objectives broad?

X

Are learning objectives specific?

Criterion 4: Format*

Development of the SBE uses a theoretical and/or conceptual framework focusing on the purpose and learner. The simulation has a designated start, purposeful activities and a clear end-point.

Structure

Comments

Are targeted participants identified?

Are assessment type or evaluation method identified?

Under Educational Resources – “Info for Educators.

Is there a beginning, middle and end to simulation?

Criterion 5: Scenario Design*

Provides a process that supports objectives and expected outcomes; creates a backstory, cues to guide learners; timeframes to facilitate progression, and identifies critical actions/performance measures for evaluation.

Scenario Context

Comments

Does the simulation provide a report, patient file, or appropriate responses during the simulation to provide context to the case?

Are cues embedded in the scenario to progress the case?

Does the learner have a reasonable amount of time to achieve the objectives?

Are critical actions/performance measures clearly identified?

Criterion 6: Fidelity*

Use elements of physical, conceptual, and psychological fidelity to create realism.

Fidelity type

Comments

Physical - Does the environment replicate where the situation would occur (e.g. manikin, bed, equipment)?

Conceptual - Do elements realistically relate to each other (e.g. vitals are consistent with diagnosis)?

Psychological - Do contextual elements mimic certain aspects of the environment (e.g. noise, lighting, family members, distractions, time pressure)?

Criterion 7: Facilitative Approach

The facilitator should plan a learner-centered approach driven by the objectives, participants’ knowledge or level of experience, and the expected outcomes.

Criterion 8: Prebriefing

Provide learners with preparation materials and a structured prebriefing tied to objectives and a psychologically safe environment to create trust, integrity and respect. Provide learner’s expectations, orientation to the space, equipment, technology, method of evaluation, and roles.

Criterion 9: Debriefing*

Debriefing, based on theoretical frameworks or evidenced-based concepts, should immediately follow the experience. A trained debriefing facilitator will support a process to encourage reflection, knowledge exploration, identify performance/system deficits in an environment of psychological safety.

Debriefing Context

Comments

Are resources provided for integration in the debriefing process?

Under “Educational Resources”

Are there faculty-specific guidelines to facilitate debriefing?

Under “Educational Resources”

Is the debriefing structured and theory based?

3D Model of Debriefing

Are the debriefing points congruent with the objectives and simulation?

Criterion 10: Evaluation*

Simulation should include an evaluation of the participant(s), the facilitator(s), the experience, the facility, and the support team. A valid and reliable tool is used to measure expected outcomes.

Evaluation Context

Comment

Is an assessment/evaluation tool provided?

Learners receive a summary report with their responses.

Is the tool valid and reliable?

Are participants notified prior to the simulation about the method of assessment (formative, summative and/or high stakes)?

Is the evaluation tool clearly identified as formative, summative, or high stakes?

Criterion 11: Pilot Test

Important to pilot test all SBEs to ensure the intended purpose is achieved.

Faculty & Student Support

Faculty Training and Support

Comments

No training required

Easily navigated?

X

Implementation guide?

X

Clinical replacement plan provided?

X

Customization available?

Student Training and Support

Comments

No training required

Easily navigated?

Automated feedback?

Interactive?

Participants must answer questions correctly in order to progress.

Time estimates for completion?

Other Features

Feature

Comments

X

QSEN mapping?

Not explicitly met.

X

NCLEX Test Plan mapping?

Not explicitly met.

References

  1. INACSL Standards Committee, Decker, S., Alinier, G., Crawford, S.B., Gordon, R.M., Jenkins, D., & Wilson, C. (2021, September). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM The Debriefing Process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 27-32. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.011]
  2. INACSL Standards Committee, McMahon, E., Jimenez, F.A., Lawrence, K., & Victor, J. (2021, September). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM Evaluation of Learning and Performance. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 54-56. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.016]
  3. INACSL Standards Committee, Miller, C., Deckers, C., Jones, M., Wells-Beede, E., & McGee, E. (2021, September). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM Outcomes and Objectives. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 40-44. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.013]
  4. INACSL Standards Committee, Watts, P.Il, McDermott, D.S., Alinier, G., Charnetski, M., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., Meakim, C., & Nawathe, P.A. (2021, September). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM Simulation Design. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 14-21. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009]
  5. Lioce, L.(Ed.,), Lopreiato, J. (Founding Ed.), Downing, D., Chang, T.P., Robertson, J.M., Anderson, M., Diaz, D.A., & Span, A.E. (Assoc. Eds.) and the Terminology and Concepts Working Group (2020) Healthcare Simulation Dictionary (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Publication No. 20-0019. [https://doi.org/10.23970/simulationv2]
Last updated: October 18, 2021