Interprofessional Learning
and Simulation Concepts for Design
Prepared by Karl Weiss BSc., RRT
Faculty, Simulation Educator
Conestoga College, Kitchener ON.
Overview
  Review
Interprofessional (IP) Outcomes
and Scaffolding
  Defining Simulation
  Exploring applications of the IPSimulation Framework
Interprofessional Construct
Basic Outcomes
Advanced
Outcomes
Role Clarity
Team/System
Effectiveness
Team Valuing
Advanced
Communication
IP
Communication
Team
Mentoring
Team
Accountability
Evidence-Informed
Reflection
Scaffold
Immersion &
Collaboration
IP Immersion
IP
Exposure
Team
Reflection
Peer Mentoring
Conflict
Resolution
Foundational Learning
Identity Development
Simulation Definitions

“Simulation”

Activities that mimic real-world practice
•  Applied Exercises
•  Objectives span cognitive, psychomotor and affective
domains

Supported by
•  Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory
•  Constructivism
•  Situated Learning Theory (Lave)
Simulation Definitions

“Fidelity” 
Level of realism

Contextual Attributes
•
•
•
•
Environment
Situation Resources
Dynamics
Simulation Definitions

“Fidelity”

Level of realism

Functional Attributes
•  Function of time (realtime/synchronous)
•  Role accountability and
responsibility
•  Causality
•  behaviour and
consequence to the
sequelae of events
Simulation Definitions

“Fidelity”

Level of realism

Complex Interfacing •  Person
•  Data
•  Team members (intraand inter-professional)
•  Advanced
Communication Tools
Levels of Simulation Fidelity
Low Fidelity Simulation
- Skills Training
- Experimentation with new tools
Mid Fidelity Simulation
-  Explore critical thinking pathways
-  Decision algorithms
-  Guided by facilitator
High Fidelity Simulation
- Team Performance Training
- Causality (no overt guidance)
-  High degree of accountability
Domain of Care:
Role Clarity
Team Valuing
IP
Communication
IP Basic
Team
Accountability
Team
Reflection
Peer Mentoring
Conflict
Resolution
Team/System
Effectiveness
IP Advanced
Advanced
Communication
Team
Mentoring
Evidence-Informed
Reflection
Program IP - Low Fidelity Simulation
Simulation Matrix
Foundational Learning
Identity Development
Mid Fidelity Simulation
IP Exposure
High Fidelity Simulation
IP Immersion
Immersion &
Collaboration
Practicum
PCCU Simulated/Clinical Hybrid
  Target Learners
•  19 - 3rd year RT students
•  3-4 learners/3 day event (8h/day)
•  Subsequent 3-4 12 hour shifts in PCCU
NICU/PCCU
Module Structure
4-6 Students, 2-3 Instructors
2-3 Students – Group B
2-3 Students – Group A
Sim Experience ER/Resus. (15 - 25 min.)
Sim Experience CC (15 min.)
Faculty/SME (Facilitator)
Faculty/SME (Facilitator)
IP Rounds (10 min.)
Debrief 1 (15-25 min.)
Debrief 1 (15-20 min.)
Report (BA) (5 min.)
Sim Experience CC (15 - 20 min.)
Report/Rounds Analysis/Reflections
(30-45 min.)
Debrief 2 (15 min.)
Group Reflection (5 min.)
Student Daily Schedule
Domain of Care: PCCU Environment
Adapt to changes in
care plan
Orient to P&P’s
Role Clarity
Team Valuing
IP
Communication
Use forms
Orient to forms
IP Basic
Coordinate care w/ RN
Team
Accountability
Prioritize care w/ RN
Critique team performance
Team
Reflection
Critique individual
performance
critique team performance
Peer Mentoring
Maintain
professionalism
Conflict
Resolution
Team/System
Effectiveness
IP Advanced
SBAR Communication
IP Rounds
Coordinate Care Plan
Advanced
Communication Orient to SBAR
Team
Mentoring
Critique SBAR Report
Evidence-Informed
Reflection
RT Program IP - Low Fidelity Simulation
Simulation Matrix
Foundational Learning
Identity Development
Critique IP Rounds
Mid Fidelity Simulation
IP Exposure
High Fidelity Simulation
IP Immersion
Immersion &
Collaboration
Practicum
Evaluation

Of the students





Pre-rotational NICU/PCCU assignment
NICU/PCCU learning plan
Weekly Reflection Tool
Logbook competencies (NCP)
Reflection on Communication
•  SBAR reporting
•  Morning Interprofessional Rounds
21
Reported Changes in Preparedness across the PCCU rotation
(Combined Simulated and Clinical Portions)
1.00
0.90
Reported Level of Preparedness (%)
0.80
**
p < 0.01
*
p = 0.03
**
p < 0.01
0.70
0.60
Day 0
0.50
End
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Region Specific Practice
Profession Specific Practice
Domains of Practice
Patient Care Communications
Reported Changes in Preparedness across the Simulated Portion
of the PCCU rotation
1.00
**
p < 0.01
0.90
Reported Level of Preparedness (%)
0.80
**
p < 0.01
**
p < 0.01
0.70
0.60
Day 0
0.50
Day 3
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Region Specific Practice
Profession Specific Practice
Domains of Practice
Patient Care Communications
Reported Changes in Preparedness across the
Clinical portion of the PCCU rotation
1.0
**
p = 0.01
0.9
p = 0.19
p = 0.42
Reported Level of Preparedness (%)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Day 3
0.5
End
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Region Specific Practice
Profession Specific Practice
Domains of Practice
Patient Care Communications
Feedback from Clinical
Associates

“I was very impressed with the professionalism
and knowledge base of the students who came
here. Many of the staff had the same
impression. It was very obvious that the
simulation lab had them very well
prepared (both knowledge base and clinical
skills ) to step into our NICU. So hats off to P.
and your staff for putting that together.” Clinical
Instructor of St. Joseph’s Healthcare London
25
Design

“Simulation is a technique—not a
technology—”
Gaba DM: The Future Vision of Simulation in Health Care, Qual Saf
Health Care 2004 BMJ Publ;13:i2-i10
26