Content uploaded by Catherine Shanahan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catherine Shanahan on Jun 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://informahealthcare.com/jic
ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic)
J Interprof Care, Early Online: 1–4
!2015 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2015.1027336
SHORT REPORT
Perceptions of interprofessional clinical simulation among medical
and nursing students: A pilot study
Catherine Anne Shanahan and Joy Lewis
School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona, A. T. Still University, Mt. Orab, OH, USA
Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) is a well-supported concept in medical education and a
priority for leadership. How students experience IPE is unclear. This pilot study evaluated how
medical and nursing students perceived and experienced IPE. Ten medical and 10 nursing
students participated in a clinical simulation-based IPE exercise with 2 medical and 2 nursing
students per group. Participants completed the KidSIM ATTITUDES questionnaire before and
after the exercise. Students gave verbal feedback during the post-exercise debrief. Statistical
analyses showed perceptions of the group became more positive with the exercise. With
statistical significance across all the domains (relevance of IPE and simulation, communication,
situation awareness, and roles/responsibilities), verbal comments were positive. A single clinical
simulation-based IPE exercise improved perceptions of IPE among these students. These results
provide further impetus to continue to study IPE for medical and nursing students. The findings
also support the inclusion of IPE in medical education.
Keywords
Clinical simulation, curriculum,
interprofessional education,
medical students, nursing students
History
Received 23 April 2014
Revised 10 December 2014
Accepted 5 March 2015
Published online 17 June 2015
Introduction
Interprofessional collaboration is essential for safe, high-quality,
patient-centered care. This concept is enthusiastically supported
by hospital administrators, health care professional societies, the
Institute of Medicine and the Interprofessional Education
Collaboration Expert Panel (IPEC, 2011). In order to set the
stage for interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional educa-
tion (IPE) should be incorporated into health professional
education programs (Reese, Jeffries, & Engum, 2010).
There is debate regarding the most effective approach to IPE.
There is no standard of practice with respect to teaching approach,
duration of activities or optimal professional mix for the IPE of
health professionals. However, there is evidence that IPE
activities using experiential learning via clinical simulation are
effective (Baker et al., 2008). In addition, it has been suggested
that IPE activities were perceived more positively with small
groups when compared with large group activities, where students
were supported by regular, integrated interprofessional activities
(Rosenfield, Oandasan, & Reeves, 2011).
As educators strive to develop and incorporate IPE experiences
into curricula, guidance is needed on how to evaluate them. These
evaluations need to include not only collaboration, teamwork,
leadership and the communication aspects of the experience but
also the learning modality used. There are numerous evaluative
tools available. While many have shown internal validity in their
ability to measure various aspects of learner perceptions of and
attitudes toward IPE, most have not evaluated the learning
modality used for the IPE experiences (Sigalet, Donnon, & Grant,
2012). Drawing from these tools, Sigalet et al. (2012) developed
a questionnaire that covers domains evaluated by existing
tools and evaluates clinical simulation as the learning modality
for the experience. The questionnaire presents positive statements
related to IPE, participants are asked their level of agreement
using a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores represent more positive
attitudes.
Since clinical simulations have been found to be effective
learning modalities for IPE experiences (Baker et al., 2008), we
employed the questionnaire developed by Sigalet et al. (2012).
Validated for clinical simulation in critical care and emergency
settings, this tool covers participants’ perceptions in five domains:
relevance of IPE; relevance of simulation; communication;
situation awareness; and roles and responsibilities. It has been
reported that the tool has good internal validity when compared
with other interprofessional questionnaires (Sigalet et al., 2012).
The purpose of this article is to report a pilot study that
described the perceptions of medical and nursing students of a
clinical simulation-based IPE experience and to identify student
characteristics related to these perceptions.
Background
The study enrolled 10 third-year medical students and 10 senior
associate degree nursing students. The IPE experience was
required for the medical student orientation. The nursing
instructors solicited volunteers for a ‘‘clinical simulation experi-
ence’’ from those starting their final year of nursing school.
The intervention was conducted with five groups of four students
Correspondence: Catherine Anne Shanahan, School of Osteopathic
Medicine in Arizona, A. T. Still University, 612 South High St., Mt.
Orab, OH 45154, USA. E-mail: cshanahan@atsu.edu
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 184.167.32.216 on 06/22/15
For personal use only.
(two nursing and two medical). The students participated in a
clinical simulation experience using a human patient simulator.
The medical student instructors and the nursing instructors
worked together to develop and administer this IPE experience.
Methods
The study employed a pre-/post-intervention design. Data were
collected from each student prior to the simulation exercise
included: age, gender, years and type of clinical work experience,
discipline, education level and past IPE experience. The students
were asked to not discuss the simulation experience with others.
The simulations took place at the community college simulation
lab; all the groups had the same scenario. All of the participants
had some past experience with clinical simulation.
Before and after the clinical simulation, participants took the
questionnaire. The questionnaires were numbered and linked to a
participant to enable comparisons (pre and post). These names
and numbers were entered into a password protected Excel
spreadsheet. The pre-/post-questionnaire data were entered into an
encrypted, password protected, Excel spreadsheet by number.
Hard copies of the questionnaires were kept in a locked filing
cabinet. A debrief session with students and faculty immediately
followed each session. Student comments were written down but
kept anonymous.
The anonymous pre-/post-responses were analyzed using
paired t-tests. The results were stratified based on gender,
discipline and clinical experience.
Ethical considerations
This project was deemed exempt by the local Institutional Review
Board (IRB). The IRB did not require written consent but did
require a letter be given to each participant that stated the focus of
the study, time commitment to complete the survey, assurance that
information would be de-identified and that participation was
voluntary. A letter inclusive of the requirements was given to all
of the participants.
Results
All 20 participants in the simulation completed the pre- and post-
questionnaire and debrief. There were 13 females and 7 males,
50% were between the ages of 20 and 30 years with two
participants over age 40 years. As shown in the table, questions
were grouped by domain. Pre- and post-answers were compared
using paired t-tests and all the domains showed statistically
significant increases (Table I). Analysis of factor score by gender,
discipline and previous clinical experience, showed no significant
changes.
In relation to open-ended questions, the students were over-
whelmingly positive about the experience. Some expressed
appreciation for the small size of the groups. Others expressed
that at first roles were unclear. ‘‘I wanted to make a suggestion
but did not think I was allowed to’’, stated a nursing student.
Despite the initial awkwardness, there was the sense of ultimately
gaining consensus and using ‘‘we’’ versus ‘‘I’’ when commu-
nicating. While some nursing students were apprehensive, con-
cerned about their knowledge level; many medical students were
impressed with the nursing students’ level of clinical knowledge
and experience. ‘‘I was not comfortable giving orders’’ expressed
one of the medical students. The participants stated that the
experience was valuable, ‘‘liked the simulation better with medical
students there, more realistic’’ and requested more similar
sessions.
Discussion
The results suggest possible positive changes in perceptions after
an IPE clinical simulation exercise. This is consistent with other
work that showed clinical simulation to be an effective and well-
received IPE modality (Baker et al., 2008). Students reported
finding clinical simulation relevant and realistic. Additionally,
clinical simulation encourages students to think and to
take action. Thus, students may be able to define their own
roles and responsibilities while working together in an inter-
professional manner. This approach may also encourage inter-
professional faculty to lead by example since the development of
simulation exercises for IPE often requires interprofessional
educators to model collaborative behavior (Baker et al., 2008).
Feedback supported the concept that IPE clinical simulations
are well received when delivered in small groups (Rosenfield
et al., 2011).
Limitations include a small sample size. The lack of significant
change related to gender, discipline and past clinical experience
may be due to this. Also, there is selection bias with nursing
students being volunteers.
In summary, this study provides some positive perceptions
about the use of interprofessional clinical simulation. Participating
students and faculty are enthusiastic about integrating IPE into
curricula and are now ambassadors for IPE. Enthusiasm for IPE
may wane over time (Bradley, Cooper, & Duncan, 2009). Future
research should evaluate how to make this positive change
sustainable. Frequency and timing of IPE and disciplines to
include need further clarification. This study shows that IPE is
valued by students, additional IPE training is desired. Future
research could replicate this study with more participants.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participating students, Southern State
Community College, Melanie Foxx and Bruce Fugate.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are
responsible for the writing and content of the paper.
Table I. Pre- and post-IPE simulation factor scores.
Pre-test (n ¼20) Post-test (n ¼20)
Domains (items) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p Value
a
Relevance of IPE (7 items# 1–4,28–30) 29.80 (3.21) 33.70 (1.98) 50.0001
Relevance of simulation (5 items #5–7,9,16) 21.30 (1.89) 23.85 (2.01) 50.0001
Communication (8 items #8,10–15,18) 35.40 (2.93) 38.50 (2.14) 0.0005
Situation awareness (4 items# 17,19–21) 16.40 (1.70) 19.00 (1.49) 50.0001
Roles and responsibilities (6 items# 22–27) 25.05 (2.44) 28.55 (2.19) 50.0001
Total (30 items) 127.95 (10.62) 143.65 (8.86) 50.0001
a
Paired t-test, a p value of 50.01 is considered significant for this study.
2C. A. Shanahan & J. Lewis J Interprof Care, Early Online: 1–4
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 184.167.32.216 on 06/22/15
For personal use only.
References
Baker, C., Pulling, C., McGraw, R., Dagnone, J., Hopkins-Rosseel, D., &
Medves, J. (2008). Simulation in interprofessional education for
patient-centered collaborative care. Journal of Advanced Nursing,64,
372–379.
Bradley, P., Cooper, S., & Duncan, F. (2009). A mixed-methods study of
interprofessional learning of resuscitation skills. Medical Education,
43, 912–922.
Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011). Core
competencies for interprofessional education collaborative practice.
Washington D.C.: Interprofessional Education Collaborative.
Reese, C., Jeffries, P., & Engum, S. (2010). Using simulations to develop
nursing and medical student collaboration. Nursing Education
Perspectives,31, 33–49.
Rosenfield, D., Oandasan, I., & Reeves, S. (2011). Perceptions
versus reality: a qualitative study of students’ expectations and
experiences of interprofessional education. Medical Education,
45, 471–477.
Sigalet, E., Donnon, T., & Grant, V. (2012). Undergraduate students’
perceptions of and attitudes toward a simulation-based interprofes-
sional curriculum. Society for Simulation in Healthcare,7,
353–358.
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2015.1027336 Interprofessional clinical simulation among medical and nursing students 3
J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 184.167.32.216 on 06/22/15
For personal use only.