Article Text
Abstract
Objective To better understand the potential of a needs assessment approach using qualitative data from manikin-based and virtual patient simulation debriefing sessions compared with traditional data collection methods (ie, focus groups and interviews).
Design Original data from simulation debrief sessions was compared and contrasted with data from an earlier assessment of critical care needs in a community setting (using focus groups and interviews), thus undertaking secondary analysis of data. Time and cost data were also examined. Debrief sessions were coded using deductive and inductive techniques. Matrices were used to explore the commonalities, differences and emergent findings across the methods.
Setting Critical care unit in a community hospital setting.
Results Interviews and focus groups yielded 684 and 647 min of audio-recordings, respectively. The manikin-based debrief recordings averaged 22 min (total=130 min) and virtual patient debrief recordings averaged 31 min (total=186 min). The approximate cost for the interviews and focus groups was $13 560, for manikin-based simulation debriefs was $4030 and for the virtual patient debriefs was $3475. Fifteen of 20 total themes were common across the simulation debriefs and interview/focus group data. Simulation-specific themes were identified, including fidelity (environment, equipment and psychological) and the multiple roles of the simulation instructor (educative, promoting reflection and assessing needs).
Conclusions Given current fiscal realities, the dual benefit of being educative and identifying needs is appealing. While simulation is an innovative method to conduct needs assessments, it is important to recognise that there are trade-offs with the selection of methods.
- qualitative research
- quality in health care
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors AJS contributed to the study planning and conceptualisation and led data collection, data interpretation/analysis, manuscript development and review. RA contributed to the study planning and conceptualisation, interpretation/data analysis, manuscript development and review. SS contributed to the study conceptualisation, interpretation/data analysis, manuscript development and review. AL contributed to data collection, manuscript development and review. JK contributed to the study planning and conceptualisation, data collection, manuscript preparation and review. PC contributed to the study planning and conceptualisation, data collection, manuscript development and review.
Funding This study was funded by a grant from The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization (TOHAMO)
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.