“Same But Different”: The Role and Perceptions of the Simulation Clinical Educator

Simulated learning programs are an important component of allied health education. Although the role of simulation clinical educators has been highlighted as critical for student learning within simulation, their perceptions of their role have not yet been investigated. This study aimed to explore the experiences of simulation clinical educators. Participants were ten simulation clinical educators who had supported speech-language pathology students’ learning during a 5-day simulation program focussed on speech-language pathology practice with adult clients in acute hospital and rehabilitation settings. Educators participated in individual semi-structured interviews exploring their role and their perceptions of the simulation-based learning program. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Three inter-related themes emerged from participants’ views. The major theme of Unique teaching and learning environment incorporated five subthemes: focus on teaching; safe learning environment; authenticity and engagement; structure and intensity of learning, and; feedback opportunities. Two additional themes were identified: Clinical educator role same but different, and Simulation bridges the gap between theory and practice. This study offers new insights into simulation clinical educators’ perceptions of their role when supporting students within simulation and highlight the importance of harnessing the unique benefits of simulation as a teaching pedagogy to maximize its impacts on student learning and justify its costs

A framework to support the development of quality simulation-based learning programmes in speech-language pathology

Background Simulation-based learning provides students with a safe learning environment, guaranteed exposure to specific clinical scenarios and patients, time for reflection and repetition of tasks, and an opportunity to receive feedback from multiple sources. Research including studies specific to allied health training programmes have demonstrated that simulation-based learning also helps increase learners' confidence and reduces anxiety related to clinical environments, activities and skills. Such evidence, together with increasing challenges in provision of workplace clinical education, has supported an expansion of integrating simulation-based learning into university curricula.Aims To provide detailed information about the processes and considerations involved in the development of a simulation-based learning programme for speech-language pathology.Methods & Procedures Through reflection on the development process of a 5-day simulation-based learning programme, and in light of existing research in simulation, this paper outlines the important steps and considerations required for the development of a simulation-based learning programme to support student competency development in adult speech pathology range of practice areas.Main Contribution A proposed framework for the development of future simulation-based learning programmes in speech-language pathology.Conclusions & Implications The framework can be applied to simulation-based learning for university programmes and/or workplace training in speech-language pathology and across several other health disciplines

Simulation can replace part of speech-language pathology placement time: a randomised controlled trial

Simulation is increasingly used within speech-language pathology education. Research has primarily explored students' perceptions of learning in simulation. The aim of this study was to determine if speech-language pathology students achieved a statistically-equivalent level of competency when a mean of 20% of placement time was replaced with simulation compared to placements without a simulation component. This non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involved students from six Australian universities. Students were randomised to either a simulation + traditional placement group attending 5\ua0days of simulation prior to their traditional placement, or a traditional only placement group. Their end-placement clinical competency was assessed using Competency Assessment in Speech Pathology (COMPASS). Final data were available for 325 students: 150 students in traditional placements, 138 students in protocol-compliant simulation + traditional placements, and 37 students in non-protocol simulation + traditional placements. There were no statistically significant differences between groups (traditional vs protocol-compliant simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon  = 1.23,  = 286,  = 0.22; traditional vs intention-to-treat simulation + traditional Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon  = 0.23,  = 323,  = 0.81). This research contributes to the evidence base which suggests that simulation can partially replace traditional placement time for speech-language pathology students without loss of competency, substantiating its value as an alternative placement model in speech-language pathology programmes

A cost analysis of a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech-language pathology student training

Purpose: There is poor reporting of the cost of simulation and greater transparency is needed. The primary study aim was to conduct a financial analysis of the university/training institution costs associated with a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech–language pathology students. The secondary aim was to consider the economic costs of the model. Method: Costs associated with the delivery of a 5-day simulation-based learning program for speech–language pathology students from six Australian universities were collected regarding: (a) pre-program training, (b) personnel, (c) room hire, (d) equipment, and (e) consumables. Both financial costs and economic costs (Australian dollar, at June 2017) were calculated per university site, and per student. Result: The simulation program was run 21 times involving 176 students. Average total financial cost per program ranged from $4717 to$11 425, with cost variation primarily attributed to local labour costs and various use of in-kind support. Average financial cost per student was $859 (range$683–$1087), however this was almost double ($1461 per student, range $857–$2019) in the economic cost calculation. Personnel was the largest contributing cost component accounting for 76.6% of financial costs. Personnel was also the highest contributing cost in the economic analysis, followed by room hire. Conclusion: This study provides clarity regarding financial and economic costing for a 5-day simulation-based learning program. These data can help universities consider potential up-front financial costs, and well as strategies for financial cost minimisation, when implementing simulation-based learning within the university context