From the University of Bourgogne-Franche Comté (C.P., M.B.), CHU Dijon Bourgogne, Institute of Nursing Education; CHU Dijon Bourgogne, CIC INSERM (C.P., D.B.-B., M.B.), Dijon; Health Education and Practices Laboratory (R.G., M.G., O.G., D.P.B., C.M.), EA 3412, University Paris 13 Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny; Health Simulation Center SimUSanté (C.A., M.G.), CHU, Amiens; Robert Debré Hospital (E.B.), CHU, Reims; Transversal Unit of Patient Therapeutic Education (UTEP) (D.C., G.V.), CHU, University of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Dijon; Clinical Psychiatry Department (E.C.), Hospital of Novillars, Novillars, France; Pedagogy and Continuing Professional Development (G.C.), Laval University, Quebec City, Canada; Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Centre (V.D.), Mother and Child Hospital, Nantes; Transversal Unit of Therapeutic Patient Education (UTEP) (X.D.L.T.), CHU Montpellier; IREPS (Regional Body for Education and Health Promotion) Haute Normandie (B.D.), Rouen; INSERM U1171 (P.D.), Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, CHU Lille; CRP-CPO (M.G.), EA 7273, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens; Transversal Unit of Patient Therapeutic Education (UTEP) (C.G.), CHU Nantes; French Hemophilia Association (AFH) (A.L.), Paris; Patients Knowledge, Institute for the Promotion of Patients and Caregivers Partners in Health of Occitanie (P.L.), Occitanie; Pediatric Diabetes, Pediatric Ward, CHU Toulouse (C.L.), Toulouse; CHEM - College of Advanced Studies in Medicine (C.M.), Brest; French Association of Diabetics (AFD 34) (R.M.), Hérault, France; Department of Public Health (B.P.), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; Interprofessional Simulation Centre (P.P.), Geneva University of Health Sciences, Geneva, Switzerland; CEnSIM Healthcare Simulation Center (T.S.), Metropole Savoie Hospital, Chambéry; Laboratory of Research on Acquisition in Context (LaRAC) (T.S.), Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; Patient Prevention and Education Center - Therapeutic Education Department (M.V.d.S.-E.), CH, Soissons, France; Center of Expertise in Therapeutic Patient Education in Lorraine (J.V.), CHR of Metz-Thionville, Metz, France; University of Bourgogne-Franche Comté (M.B.), UFR Sciences Santé, Dijon, France; and (Y.M.) is not affiliated with any institution.
Simul Healthc. 2020 Feb;15(1):30-38. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000401.
Simulation is rarely used to help individuals with chronic diseases develop skills. The aim of the study was to provide recommendations for the use of simulation in therapeutic patient education (S-TPE).
Expert consensus was achieved with the participation of the following 3 groups of experts: (a) expert patients and caregivers; (b) health professionals specialized in therapeutic patient education (TPE); and (c) simulation experts. Each expert received a list of questions by e-mail in 3 iterations. The synthesis of the 2 first questionnaires resulted in 34 first recommendations voted during the consensus conference meeting. Each recommendation was subject to an extensive literature review. The quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were assessed through the evaluation, development, and evaluation criteria categories (GRADE criteria). The third questionnaire selected and illustrated recommendations more specific to the use of S-TPE.
At the end of the process, the experts identified 26 recommendations specific to the use of S-TPE. They proposed examples of skills in different diseases and stressed the importance of adapting the conditions of use (location, equipment, time of the care) to the circumstances of the patient learner and skills to be developed. Experts should exercise great caution as this technique presents ethical considerations related to patient care.
These recommendations underline the fact that simulation could bring added value to TPE. They provide a framework and examples for the experimental use of simulation in TPE. Research into feasibility and acceptability is needed.
模拟技术很少用于帮助慢性病患者发展技能。本研究旨在为治疗性患者教育中的模拟应用(S-TPE)提供建议。
以下 3 组专家参与了专家共识的达成:(a)专家患者和护理人员;(b)专门从事治疗性患者教育(TPE)的健康专业人员;(c)模拟专家。每位专家通过电子邮件在 3 轮迭代中收到了一份问题清单。前两轮问卷的综合结果产生了 34 项共识会议上投票的初步建议。每项建议都经过了广泛的文献回顾。证据质量和建议强度通过评估、制定和评估标准类别(GRADE 标准)进行评估。第三轮问卷选择并说明了更具体的 S-TPE 使用建议。
在整个过程结束时,专家们确定了 26 项针对 S-TPE 使用的具体建议。他们提出了不同疾病中技能的示例,并强调了调整使用条件(地点、设备、护理时间)以适应患者学习者的情况和要发展的技能的重要性。由于该技术与患者护理相关的伦理问题,专家应格外谨慎。
这些建议强调了模拟技术可以为 TPE 带来附加值的事实。它们为在 TPE 中模拟的实验应用提供了框架和示例。需要研究其可行性和可接受性。