Tools
Utilization of Embedded Simulation Personnel in Medical Simulation
Introduction
A gold standard simulation involves a well-planned, well-executed scenario. An ideal or gold standard simulation scenario includes embedded participants (EPs) to portray roles in the scenario that are not designated as the patient or the learners. It is usual practice for a group of learners to alternate or take turns being the learner in one scenario, and then being an embedded participant in another scenario. These EPs are sometimes referred to colloquially as hot seat participants. The Healthcare Simulation Dictionary is a Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) publication that defines simulation terminology. Although hot seat participant is not included, the term embedded participant (EP) is defined as: "An individual who is trained or scripted to play a role in a simulation encounter to guide the scenario, and might be known or unknown to the participants; guidance may be positive or negative, or a distractor based on the objectives, level of the participants, and the needs of the scenario" (Lioce et al., 2020, p. 16).
Historically, the term used to describe the role of EP was confederate. The Victorian Simulated Patient Network defined confederate as: "An individual other than the patient, who is scripted in a simulation to provide realistic experiences, simulate challenges, or additional information for the learner, e.g., paramedic, receptionist, family member, laboratory technician" (Lioce et al., 2020, p. 12). The Australian Society for Simulation in Healthcare defined confederate as: "An individual(s) who, during the clinical scenario, provides assistance locating and/or troubleshooting equipment. This individual(s) may provide support for participants in the form of 'help available,' e.g. 'nurse in charge,' and/or provide information about the manikin that is not available in other ways, e.g., temperature, color change, and/or to provide additional realism by playing the role of a relative or a staff member" (Lioce et al., 2020, p. 12). As of today, the term embedded simulation personnel (ESP) is considered the most politically correct and most up to date simulation term to describe this role. Even so, you may still find old and new literature that includes the terms EP, confederate, standardized patient, simulated patient, simulated person, role player, or actor.
In a 1993 Academic Medicine publication, HS Barrow recalled how, in the 1960s, he first defined the term standardized patient (SP), which per his definition, included either a simulated patient or an actual patient with specialized training. H[1]S Barrow was one of the early adopters of SPs in healthcare simulation education and helped develop the role in academic medicine. The use of SPs has grown since the 1960s and is now ubiquitous. Sometimes an SP is enlisted to play the role of an ESP in a high-stakes/summative simulation scenario. The authors further define a standardized patient to be a person who is coached/trained to simulate a patient so accurately that a skilled clinician cannot detect the simulation. For both learner assessment of performance and provider assessment of the quality of care, SPs have been utilized as undercover, mystery, or incognito simulated patients/clients.[2][3][4] Standardized patients are paid and often charge by the hour, sometimes with a minimum number of hours required at the time of booking.[5]
Other times, a learner-volunteer is asked to step into the ESP role in low-stakes/formative simulation scenarios. The authors further define embedded simulation personnel (ESP) as an individual who is trained or scripted to play a role in a simulation encounter to guide the scenario and may be known or unknown to the participants. ESPs are often volunteers or unpaid, creating the term volunteer embedded participant (VEP). On occasion, VEPs may be given a gift for their participation and/or have costs covered, such as parking and lunch.[5]
Function
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Search engine and full access to all medical articles- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Function
According to Sanko et al., a confederate is "among the most powerful tools available to simulation instructors".[6] This is because a confederate/ESP plays a substantial role in the determination of the psychological or emotional fidelity of a simulation scenario. Therefore, simulation instructors achieve the highest level of realism/fidelity by using properly trained ESPs, which one could argue is equivalent to a paid SP in the ESP role. Sanko et al. go on to define how theater arts and the study of theater can apply to healthcare education simulation, which is an aspect often overlooked by healthcare simulation educators.
To optimally use ESPs, they must be informed with comprehensive knowledge of the scenario, learning objectives, assessment tools, and a full simulation scenario script. ESPs must receive training on their role, be attuned to the level of learners in the simulation, and be cognizant of the intended impact on learning outcomes. When educators design scenarios, consideration should be given to the roles of ESPs and how best to utilize them. Simulation educators should also develop full scripts for each ESP and also permit the simulationist running the scenario to make changes on the fly to achieve the learning objectives.[5]
Best-practices for utilization of ESPs are echoed in the Pascucci et al. publication that described their 10-year experience recruiting and training SPs for use as ESPs and other simulation roles at Boston Children's Hospital.[7] Pascucci et al. listed guidelines and necessary information to provide SP actors as deliverables that simulation scenario designers should construct during scenario development:
- Learning objectives
- Level of experience and training for learners/participants
- Duration of the scenario, including ways to end/stop authentically
- Clearly written medical details
- Glossary of medical terms and relevant background medical information
- Age
- Sex, including gender identity
- Socioeconomic status
- Family dynamics
- Emotional states of patients and families in similar situations
- Examples of typical comments, questions, or concerns expressed by patients and family members.[7]
To meet these guidelines, ESPs need training and dress rehearsal sessions before running a simulation scenario with learners present. These pre-scenario events represent current best practices in simulation education and the use of ESPs.[5]
Jill S. Sanko is also the first author of Using Embedded Simulated Persons, a chapter in the SSH book Defining Excellence in Simulation Programs. Sanko et al. stated, "...simulation programs that lack training and assessment of ESPs do their learners and their programs an injustice, robbing them of the full spectrum of engagement and learning that can take place in a well-rehearsed, well-rounded, and well-acted simulation experience" (Sanko et al., 2015). The chapter listed ten recommendations to improve the use of ESPs:
- Do allow learners to make mistakes: There is no better setting for errors than simulation.
- Do not ad-lib for drama's sake: There's a time and a place, for, but it is not usually in simulation.
- Do adapt to learner behaviors: The scenario should be scripted, but learners' responses are unpredictable.
- Do use communication devices: They help keep ESPs and scenario coordinators on track but beware of their pitfalls.
- Do know your learners: Their level of training should guide the ESPs' words and actions.
- Do use realistic props and costumes: They always tell a story and provide valuable clues.
- Do commit to the character: ESPs are playing roles to send messages to the learners, not playing themselves.
- Do pay attention to nonverbal cues: Emotional responses contribute to learning.
- Do not be the star of the show: Simulation is all about the learners' improvement.
- Do find ways to improve: Rehearse before, debrief, and evaluate after simulation.
Adler et al. showed that ESP training is essential and can be done well when following the above guidelines and recommendations.[8] In the CPR CARES study, they used two ESPs, who were cross-trained to play two roles, provided pre-scenario practice sessions, and supplied pocket cards and materials intended for review just before running the simulation scenarios. Simulation educators then conducted a real-time rating of the ESPs' performance of learner interaction and role-play during the simulation scenarios. Researchers demonstrated the method of training ESPs resulted in 85% of ESPs achieving a perfect rating on the checklist.[8] Ballas et al. demonstrated the successful use of ESPs in all roles other than the surgeon for a surgical curriculum designed to teach emergency undocking during robotic surgery.[9]
Issues of Concern
Cheng et al. proposed two formats for designing simulation scenarios to practice crisis resource management (CRM).[10] One involved running CRM scenarios with learners and ESPs with the assumption that at some point in the scenario, CRM principles will present, which will subsequently be discussed and addressed during debriefing.[10] The other format involved careful scripting of all roles and designing scenarios to include specific CRM principles.[10]
This suggests that specific scenarios and educational goals, such as CRM training, may not require such scripted, practiced, trained ESPs to achieve learning objectives. In 2015, Bosse et al. tested the effectiveness of medical student peer role-play (i.e., embedded participants) versus formally trained SPs in a communication scenario designed for summative assessment of medical students via objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs).
Researchers found comparable OSCE performance levels in both groups of medical students using the Calgary-Cambridge Referenced Observation Guide. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis showed that medical students strongly favored peer role-play over trained SPs.[11] This was in follow-up to a 2010 study from the same group of educators who found that medical students indicated a preference for the use of SPs for communication training while both groups (peer role-play versus trained SPs) demonstrated student achievement/learning. Educators also noted the potential for role-playing to foster greater empathy among students.[12] There is support in the nursing education literature for the use of role-playing to teach communication and patient-centered care.[13][14][15]
These studies cited the need to have carefully designed sessions and training for the role-playing students, which may resolve any skepticism regarding the usefulness of role-playing. There is also support for achieving learning objectives through the use of role-playing in undergraduate medical education.[16][17][18][17]
A 2005 review of the literature on the topic of SPs versus peer role-play concluded there was a definitive need for well-designed studies to assess communication skill acquisition in various educational settings.[19] Yet as of 2020, there are only a few studies and no definitive answers. A 2015 pilot study compared post-interview perceptions of physical therapy students who interviewed SPs versus volunteer patients and found students in both groups found the experience equally useful.[20]
Both the volunteer patients and the SPs had a 30-minute orientation to go over the purpose, timing, and format of the interview. Both groups were encouraged to answer questions but not provide more detail, thus requiring students to ask more questions. The cost for SPs in this study was three times that of the volunteer patients, and therefore the conclusion was volunteers are more cost-effective. There are also instances in the literature where the knowledge pertinent to specific/specialized skill sets have known limitations, such as the use of trained SPs for the role of physician anesthesiologists in high-fidelity surgical simulations.[21]
If the fidelity of surgical simulation and achievement of learning objectives depends on the realistic depiction of anesthesiologists, a highly-trained physician with a particular skillset, then utilization of actual anesthesiologists could be both essential and more cost-effective versus trained SPs.
Curriculum Development
Given that current simulation education literature supports the use of role-playing, volunteer patients, and standardized patients as ESPs, educators must judge which will be the best fit for their educational goals, learner groups, and budget. Formative learning may be a better fit for the more cost-effective peer role-players and VEPs. Summative high-stakes testing environments or high-level simulation research may require the use of specially trained SPs to play ESP roles.[22]
While peers are readily available for role-playing, volunteers may not be as invested in the simulation learning as paid SPs. Literature does not mention this when discussing the use of volunteers, so this concern may be mitigated by careful selection of VEPs such that they are also invested in the learning objectives. Studies indicated equal educational quality and achievement of learning objectives in all groups: role-playing ESPs, VEPs, and SPs as ESPs.[23][24]
Psychological safety should also be a consideration when choosing among the groups of ESPs available for use, with consideration for both the psychological safety of learners and the ESPs themselves. Emotionally charged simulations, such as breaking bad news, may require the use of specially trained SPs as ESPs.[25][26][22] Educators will have to choose among what is available at their institution. Not all simulation centers have access to trained SPs, and some healthcare education programs have very low budgets.
Clinical Significance
Simulation has become a significant method of education in both nursing and medical schools, as well as in graduate medical education and other training fields in healthcare. Trainers owe it to our learners to execute top-notch, gold-standard simulations following all available guidelines on best practice and simulation education theory. Educators must keep current on simulation education literature and continue to advance the field. Answers to questions raised in this publication regarding which is best (role-playing peers, VEPs, or SPs as ESPs) remain unanswered. The answer may, in fact, be: it depends on learning objectives, access to SPs, budget concerns, etc. Or answers may be obtained by conducting large-scale multi-institution randomized controlled trials of learners. Given that medical schools spend large amounts of both time and money on medical student OSCEs, perhaps there will be funding made available to drive this important research agenda.
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
Simulation is used in all healthcare fields and is an excellent tool to enhance interprofessional teamwork.[27][28][29] Simulation team training has demonstrated improved patient outcomes.[30][31][32][33][34] The recommendation is for the use of appropriately trained ESPs, be they paid, volunteer, or peers who do role-playing. All ESPs can serve a positive and influential role in interprofessional and team training simulations, and also improve patient-centered care.
References
Barrows HS. An overview of the uses of standardized patients for teaching and evaluating clinical skills. AAMC. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 1993 Jun:68(6):443-51; discussion 451-3 [PubMed PMID: 8507309]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceKing JJC, Das J, Kwan A, Daniels B, Powell-Jackson T, Makungu C, Goodman C. How to do (or not to do) … using the standardized patient method to measure clinical quality of care in LMIC health facilities. Health policy and planning. 2019 Oct 1:34(8):625-634. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz078. Epub [PubMed PMID: 31424494]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceFitzpatrick A, Tumlinson K. Strategies for Optimal Implementation of Simulated Clients for Measuring Quality of Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Global health, science and practice. 2017 Mar 24:5(1):108-114. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00266. Epub 2017 Mar 28 [PubMed PMID: 28126970]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceSylvia S, Shi Y, Xue H, Tian X, Wang H, Liu Q, Medina A, Rozelle S. Survey using incognito standardized patients shows poor quality care in China's rural clinics. Health policy and planning. 2015 Apr:30(3):322-33. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czu014. Epub 2014 Mar 20 [PubMed PMID: 24653216]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceLewis KL, Bohnert CA, Gammon WL, Hölzer H, Lyman L, Smith C, Thompson TM, Wallace A, Gliva-McConvey G. The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP). Advances in simulation (London, England). 2017:2():10. doi: 10.1186/s41077-017-0043-4. Epub 2017 Jun 27 [PubMed PMID: 29450011]
Sanko JS, Shekhter I, Kyle RR Jr, Di Benedetto S, Birnbach DJ. Establishing a convention for acting in healthcare simulation: merging art and science. Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2013 Aug:8(4):215-20. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e318293b814. Epub [PubMed PMID: 23884448]
Pascucci RC, Weinstock PH, O'Connor BE, Fancy KM, Meyer EC. Integrating actors into a simulation program: a primer. Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2014 Apr:9(2):120-6. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a3ded7. Epub [PubMed PMID: 24096918]
Adler MD, Overly FL, Nadkarni VM, Davidson J, Gottesman R, Bank I, Marohn K, Sudikoff S, Grant VJ, Cheng A, International Network for Simulation-Based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE) CPR Investigators. An Approach to Confederate Training Within the Context of Simulation-Based Research. Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2016 Oct:11(5):357-362 [PubMed PMID: 27388861]
Ballas DA, Cesta M, Gothard D, Ahmed R. Emergency Undocking Curriculum in Robotic Surgery. Cureus. 2019 Mar 26:11(3):e4321. doi: 10.7759/cureus.4321. Epub 2019 Mar 26 [PubMed PMID: 31183300]
Cheng A, Donoghue A, Gilfoyle E, Eppich W. Simulation-based crisis resource management training for pediatric critical care medicine: a review for instructors. Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2012 Mar:13(2):197-203. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182192832. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21499181]
Bosse HM, Nickel M, Huwendiek S, Schultz JH, Nikendei C. Cost-effectiveness of peer role play and standardized patients in undergraduate communication training. BMC medical education. 2015 Oct 24:15():183. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0468-1. Epub 2015 Oct 24 [PubMed PMID: 26498479]
Bosse HM, Nickel M, Huwendiek S, Jünger J, Schultz JH, Nikendei C. Peer role-play and standardised patients in communication training: a comparative study on the student perspective on acceptability, realism, and perceived effect. BMC medical education. 2010 Mar 31:10():27. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-27. Epub 2010 Mar 31 [PubMed PMID: 20353612]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceWibley S. The use of role play. Nursing times. 1983 Jun 22-9:79(25):54-5 [PubMed PMID: 6554632]
Powers SC, Morris MH, Flynn H, Perry J. Faculty-Led Role-Play Simulation: Going Live to Teach Patient-Centered Care to Nursing Students. The Journal of nursing education. 2019 Nov 1:58(11):665-668. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20191021-10. Epub [PubMed PMID: 31665533]
Yu M, Kang KJ. Effectiveness of a role-play simulation program involving the sbar technique: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse education today. 2017 Jun:53():41-47. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.04.002. Epub 2017 Apr 9 [PubMed PMID: 28433731]
Rich C, Papanagnou D, Curley D, Zhang XC. Neurosyphilis: A Simulation Case for Emergency Medicine Residents. Cureus. 2018 Jul 16:10(7):e2984. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2984. Epub 2018 Jul 16 [PubMed PMID: 30237945]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceTaylor S, Bobba S, Roome S, Ahmadzai M, Tran D, Vickers D, Bhatti M, De Silva D, Dunstan L, Falconer R, Kaur H, Kitson J, Patel J, Shulruf B. Simulated patient and role play methodologies for communication skills training in an undergraduate medical program: Randomized, crossover trial. Education for health (Abingdon, England). 2018 Jan-Apr:31(1):10-16. doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.239040. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30117467]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceNestel D, Tierney T. Role-play for medical students learning about communication: guidelines for maximising benefits. BMC medical education. 2007 Mar 2:7():3 [PubMed PMID: 17335561]
Lane C, Rollnick S. The use of simulated patients and role-play in communication skills training: a review of the literature to August 2005. Patient education and counseling. 2007 Jul:67(1-2):13-20 [PubMed PMID: 17493780]
Murphy S, Imam B, MacIntyre DL. Standardized Patients versus Volunteer Patients for Physical Therapy Students' Interviewing Practice: A Pilot Study. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada. 2015 Fall:67(4):378-84. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2014-50E. Epub [PubMed PMID: 27504038]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceNestel DF, Black SA, Kneebone RL, Wetzel CM, Thomas P, Wolfe JH, Darzi AW. Simulated anaesthetists in high fidelity simulations for surgical training: feasibility of a training programme for actors. Medical teacher. 2008:30(4):407-13. doi: 10.1080/01421590701784331. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18569663]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceBaer AN, Freer JP, Milling DA, Potter WR, Ruchlin H, Zinnerstrom KH. Breaking bad news: use of cancer survivors in role-playing exercises. Journal of palliative medicine. 2008 Jul:11(6):885-92. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2007.0253. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18715181]
Gallagher AG. Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education:- what it is and how to do it. The Ulster medical journal. 2012 Sep:81(3):107-13 [PubMed PMID: 23620606]
Ryall T, Judd BK, Gordon CJ. Simulation-based assessments in health professional education: a systematic review. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare. 2016:9():69-82. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S92695. Epub 2016 Feb 22 [PubMed PMID: 26955280]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceVermylen JH, Wood GJ, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Development of a Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Curriculum for Breaking Bad News. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2019 Mar:57(3):682-687. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.11.012. Epub 2018 Nov 23 [PubMed PMID: 30472316]
Skye EP, Wagenschutz H, Steiger JA, Kumagai AK. Use of interactive theater and role play to develop medical students' skills in breaking bad news. Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2014 Dec:29(4):704-8. doi: 10.1007/s13187-014-0641-y. Epub [PubMed PMID: 24683056]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceSteinemann S, Berg B, Skinner A, DiTulio A, Anzelon K, Terada K, Oliver C, Ho HC, Speck C. In situ, multidisciplinary, simulation-based teamwork training improves early trauma care. Journal of surgical education. 2011 Nov-Dec:68(6):472-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.05.009. Epub 2011 Aug 3 [PubMed PMID: 22000533]
Guise JM, Lowe NK, Deering S, Lewis PO, O'Haire C, Irwin LK, Blaser M, Wood LS, Kanki BG. Mobile in situ obstetric emergency simulation and teamwork training to improve maternal-fetal safety in hospitals. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety. 2010 Oct:36(10):443-53 [PubMed PMID: 21548505]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceFigueroa MI, Sepanski R, Goldberg SP, Shah S. Improving teamwork, confidence, and collaboration among members of a pediatric cardiovascular intensive care unit multidisciplinary team using simulation-based team training. Pediatric cardiology. 2013 Mar:34(3):612-9. doi: 10.1007/s00246-012-0506-2. Epub 2012 Sep 13 [PubMed PMID: 22972517]
Nishisaki A, Keren R, Nadkarni V. Does simulation improve patient safety? Self-efficacy, competence, operational performance, and patient safety. Anesthesiology clinics. 2007 Jun:25(2):225-36 [PubMed PMID: 17574187]
Nishisaki A, Donoghue AJ, Colborn S, Watson C, Meyer A, Brown CA 3rd, Helfaer MA, Walls RM, Nadkarni VM. Effect of just-in-time simulation training on tracheal intubation procedure safety in the pediatric intensive care unit. Anesthesiology. 2010 Jul:113(1):214-23. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181e19bf2. Epub [PubMed PMID: 20526179]
Siassakos D, Fox R, Crofts JF, Hunt LP, Winter C, Draycott TJ. The management of a simulated emergency: better teamwork, better performance. Resuscitation. 2011 Feb:82(2):203-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.10.029. Epub 2010 Dec 8 [PubMed PMID: 21144637]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceMcGaghie WC, Draycott TJ, Dunn WF, Lopez CM, Stefanidis D. Evaluating the impact of simulation on translational patient outcomes. Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2011 Aug:6 Suppl(Suppl):S42-7. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e318222fde9. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21705966]
Siassakos D, Fox R, Draycott T. Training to reduce adverse obstetric events with risk of cerebral palsy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2011 May:204(5):e15-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.035. Epub 2011 Jan 26 [PubMed PMID: 21272847]
Level 3 (low-level) evidence