Dep. of Interdisciplinary Studies, Rutgers School of Health Professions, 65 Bergen Street, Newark, NJ 07107, USA. Tel 973-647-7760.
J Allied Health. 2022 Spring;51(1):59-71.
This systematic review (SR) describes how simulation-based training (SBT) is utilized by selected allied health professions (AHPs).
PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from 2010 to 2020.
Standard SR methodology was utilized according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria included English studies conducted in the United States or Canada. Study designs were somewhat heterogeneous and included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods projects. Populations included selected AHPs that function primarily in an acute care setting, including radiology technologists, respiratory therapists, medical laboratory technologists, perfusionists, radiation therapists, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, physician assistants, physical therapists, and occupational therapists.
584 articles were initially identified and reviewed, 33 of which met inclusion criteria. Of them, the most common AHPs documented in the literature as using SBT appeared to be paramedics and emergency medical technicians (22 studies) as well as respiratory therapists (6 studies). Almost half of the studies were conducted in a stationary or mobile simulation lab. Most commonly, the simulations involved the use of manikins and simulated patients and could be classified as high-fidelity. Most of the impact of SBT in the AHPs appears to be on either short-term objective measures, such as post-SBT skill improvement, or subjective metrics like enhanced participant confidence. The more sustained impact such as that on intermediate and long-term skill retention in such disciplines seems uncommon, and those related to enhanced patient outcomes were not found.
It appears that SBT can be effectively utilized to enhance subjective measures such as participant confidence, as well as short-term skill enhancement within selected AHPs. However, their impact on more substantive measures such as sustained skill enhancement and patient outcomes remains unclear. In addition, the use of SBT varies greatly throughout allied health practice, and the opportunities for expanded use are significant.
本系统评价（SR）描述了选定的辅助卫生专业人员（AHPs）如何利用基于模拟的培训（SBT）。
从 2010 年到 2020 年，在 PubMed、CINAHL、Cochrane 中心、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 上进行了搜索。
根据 PRISMA 指南，采用标准的 SR 方法。纳入标准包括在美国或加拿大进行的英语研究。研究设计有些异质，包括定量、定性和混合方法项目。研究人群包括主要在急症护理环境中工作的选定 AHPs，包括放射技师、呼吸治疗师、医学实验室技术员、灌注师、放射治疗师、护理人员、急救医疗技术员、医师助理、物理治疗师和职业治疗师。
最初确定并审查了 584 篇文章，其中 33 篇符合纳入标准。在这些文章中，文献中记录的使用 SBT 的最常见的 AHP 似乎是护理人员和急救医疗技术员（22 项研究）以及呼吸治疗师（6 项研究）。近一半的研究是在固定或移动模拟实验室进行的。最常见的是，模拟涉及使用人体模型和模拟患者，可以归类为高保真度。SBT 在 AHPs 中的影响似乎主要体现在短期客观指标上，如 SBT 后的技能提高，或主观指标上，如增强参与者的信心。在这些学科中，更持久的影响，如对中间和长期技能保留的影响似乎并不常见，也没有发现与提高患者结果相关的影响。
似乎 SBT 可以有效地用于增强参与者信心等主观指标，以及选定的 AHPs 中的短期技能提高。然而，它们对更实质性的指标，如持续的技能提高和患者结果的影响仍不清楚。此外，SBT 在辅助卫生实践中的使用差异很大，扩大使用的机会很大。
