Picketts Leanne, Warren Marika Dawn, Bohnert Carrie
Centre for Collaborative Clinical Learning and Research, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Department of Bioethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2021 May 6;7(6):590-599. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000853. eCollection 2021.
Healthcare learners can gain necessary experience working with diverse and priority communities through human simulation. In this context, simulated participants (SPs) may be recruited for specific roles because of their appearance, lived experience or identity. Although one of the benefits of simulation is providing learners with practice where the risk of causing harm to patients in the clinical setting is reduced, simulation shifts the potential harm from real patients to SPs. Negative effects of tokenism, misrepresentation, stereotyping or microaggressions may be amplified when SPs are recruited for personal characteristics or lived experience. Educators have an ethical obligation to promote diversity and inclusion; however, we are also obliged to mitigate harm to SPs. The goals of simulation (fulfilling learning objectives safely, authentically and effectively) and curricular obligations to address diverse and priority communities can be in tension with one another; valuing educational benefits might cause educators to deprioritise safety concerns. We explore this tension using a framework of diversity practices, ethics and values and simulation standards of best practice. Through the lens of healthcare ethics, we draw on the ways clinical research can provide a model for how ethical concerns can be approached in simulation, and suggest strategies to uphold authenticity and safety while representing diverse and priority communities. Our objective is not to provide a conclusive statement about how values should be weighed relative to each other, but to offer a framework to guide the complex process of weighing potential risks and benefits when working with diverse and priority communities.
医疗保健专业的学习者可以通过人体模拟获得与不同和重点社区合作的必要经验。在这种情况下,模拟参与者(SPs)可能因其外貌、生活经历或身份而被招募来扮演特定角色。虽然模拟的好处之一是为学习者提供实践机会,降低在临床环境中对患者造成伤害的风险,但模拟将潜在的伤害从真实患者转移到了模拟参与者身上。当根据个人特征或生活经历招募模拟参与者时,象征主义、错误描述、刻板印象或微侵犯的负面影响可能会被放大。教育工作者有道德义务促进多样性和包容性;然而,我们也有义务减轻对模拟参与者的伤害。模拟的目标(安全、真实和有效地实现学习目标)以及应对不同和重点社区的课程义务可能相互矛盾;重视教育效益可能会导致教育工作者将安全问题置于次要地位。我们使用多样性实践、伦理和价值观框架以及最佳实践模拟标准来探讨这种矛盾。通过医疗保健伦理的视角,我们借鉴临床研究如何为模拟中处理伦理问题提供模式的方式,并提出在代表不同和重点社区时维护真实性和安全性的策略。我们的目标不是就如何相互权衡价值观提供一个结论性的陈述,而是提供一个框架,以指导在与不同和重点社区合作时权衡潜在风险和效益的复杂过程。