Expert opinions on the authenticity of moulage in simulation: a Delphi study
Tóm tắt
Moulage is a technique in which special effects makeup is used to create wounds and other effects in simulation to add context and create realism in an otherwise fabricated environment. The degree to which moulage is used in the simulated environment is varied; that is, there is no guide for how authentic it is required to be. To objectively assess whether a higher level of authenticity in moulage influences engagement and better outcomes, a common model to assess authenticity is required. The aim of this study was to explore expert opinions on moulage in simulation and develop an instrument for the classification of moulage in simulation. The instrument was developed in 3 phases: expert panellist recruitment, domain identification, and consensus rounds. A Delphi technique was used to explore themes of authenticity using Dieckmann’s Theory of Realism as a frame of reference. An initial list of elements was raised by a panel of international experts. The experts participated in a further four rounds of questioning, identifying and then ranking and/or rating elements of authenticity in moulage. A priori consensus threshold was set at 80%. In round 1, 18 of 31 invited panellists participated, and a total of 10 completed round 5 (attrition 44%). As a result of the Delphi, the Moulage Authenticity Rating Scale was developed. Under the three domains of realism, 60 elements were identified by experts. A total of 13 elements reached the consensus threshold, whilst tensions regarding the necessity for authentic moulage were identified throughout the rounds. This study demonstrates the complexity of moulage in simulation, with particular challenges surrounding the experts’ views on authenticity. A prototype instrument for measuring moulage authenticity is presented in the form of the Moulage Authenticity Rating Scale (MARS) to further aid progress in understanding the role of authentic moulage in simulation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Kelly M. Investigating the use of simulations in enhancing clinical judgement of students to practice as registered nurses. Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney; 2014.
Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, Hananel D, Heydenburg M, Issenberg B, et al. Training and simulation for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(Suppl 2):i34–43.
Hayden JK, Smiley RA, Alexander M, Kardong-Edgren S, Jeffries PR. The NCSBN National Simulation Study: a longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. J Nurs Regul. 2014;5(2):S3–S40.
Hotchkiss MA, Biddle C, Fallacaro M. Assessing the authenticity of the human simulation experience in anesthesiology. AANA J. 2002;70(6):470–3.
Seropian MA, Brown K, Gavilanes JS, Driggers B. Simulation: not just a manikin. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43(4):164–9.
INACSL. Standards of best practice: simulation<sup>SM</sup> simulation design. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12:S5–S12.
Dieckmann P, Gaba D, Rall M. Deepening the theoretical foundations of patient simulation as social practice. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):183–93.
Nestel D, Jolly B, Kelly M, Watson M. Healthcare simulation education: evidence, theory and practice. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017.
Foisy-Doll C, Leighton K. Simulation champions: fostering courage, caring, and connection. United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017.
Ker J, Bradley P. Simulation in medical education. Understanding medical education. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 164–80.
Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB. Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation. Simul Healthc. 2007;2(3):161-3.
Stokes-Parish JB, Duvivier R, Jolly B. Investigating the impact of moulage on simulation engagement—a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;64:49–55.
Worm AM, Hadjivassiliou M, Katsambas A. The Greek moulages: a picture of skin diseases in former times. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21(4):515–9.
Stokes-Parish JB, Duvivier R, Jolly B. Does appearance matter? Current issues and formulation of a research agenda for Moulage in simulation. Simul Healthc. 2016;22:22.
Swan NA. Burn moulage made easy (and cheap). J Burn Care Res. 2013;34(4):e215–e20.
Mills BW, Miles AK, Phan T, Dykstra PMC, Hansen SS, Walsh AS, et al. Investigating the extent realistic moulage impacts on immersion and performance among undergraduate paramedicine students in a simulation-based trauma scenario a pilot study. Simul Healthc. 2018;13(5):331–40.
Shiner N, Howard ML. The use of simulation and moulage in undergraduate diagnostic radiography education: a burns scenario. Radiography. 2019.
Hogg G, Christie P. P41 exploring the impact of moulage on assessment of patient deterioration. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2017;3(Suppl 2):A60.
Wilson E, Hewett DG, Jolly BC, Janssens S, Beckmann MM. Is that realistic? The development of a realism assessment questionnaire and its application in appraising three simulators for a gynaecology procedure. Adv Simul. 2018;3(1):21.
Lifecast Body Simulation United Kingdom: Lifecast Body Simulation; [Simulator Manufacturer Website]. 2019. Available from: http://www.lifecastbodysim.com/.
Hayes C, Power T, Davidson PM, Daly J, Jackson D. Nurse interrupted: development of a realistic medication administration simulation for undergraduate nurses. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(9):981–6.
Pywell MJ, Evgeniou E, Highway K, Pitt E, Estela CM. High fidelity, low cost moulage as a valid simulation tool to improve burns education. Burns. 2016;42(4):844–52.
Garg A, Wang J, Reddy SB, Powers J, Jacob R, Powers M, et al. Curricular factors associated with medical students’ practice of the skin cancer examination an educational enhancement initiative by the integrated skin exam consortium. Jama Dermatol. 2014;150(8):850–5.
Jain N, Anderson MJ, Patel P, Blatt H, Davis L, Bierman J, et al. Melanoma simulation model promoting opportunistic screening and patient counseling. Jama Dermatol. 2013;149(6):710–6.
Goulart JM, Dusza S, Pillsbury A, Soriano RP, Halpern AC, Marghoob AA. Recognition of melanoma: a dermatologic clinical competency in medical student education. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(4):606–11.
Sabzwari S, Afzal A, Nanji K. Mimicking rashes: use of moulage technique in undergraduate assessment at the Aga Khan University, Karachi. Educ Health. 2017;30(1):60–3.
Hernandez C, Mermelstein R, Robinson JK, Yudkowsky R. Assessing students' ability to detect melanomas using standardized patients and moulage. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(3):e83–8.
Hernandez C, Robinson JK. A pilot study using unannounced patients and moulage to measure melanoma detection rates by internal medicine residents. J Investig Dermatol. 2013;133:S99.
Chen R, Grierson LE, Norman GR. Evaluating the impact of high- and low-fidelity instruction in the development of auscultation skills. Med Educ. 2015;49(3):276–85.
Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):387–92.
Maloney S, Haines T. Issues of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness for simulation in health professions education. Adv Simul. 2016;1(1):13.
Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and nominal group in medical education research. Med Teach. 2017;39(1):14–9.
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32.
Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi Technique: Making Sense Of Consensus 2007.
Cole ZD, Donohue HM, Stellefson ML. Internet-based Delphi research: case based discussion. Environ Manag. 51:511-23.
SurveyMonkey. San Mateo, California. Available from: https://www.surveymonkey.com/.
MacDorman KF, Chattopadhyay D. Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition. 2016;146:190–205.
Mori M, MacDorman K, Kageki N. The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 2012;19(2):98–100.
Nestel D, Bearman M. Simulated patient methodology: theory, evidence and practice (1)GB. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014.
Doja A, Horsley T, Sampson M. Productivity in medical education research: an examination of countries of origin. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:243.
Tutarel O. Geographical distribution of publications in the field of medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2002;2:3.
Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1-8.
Mullen PM. Delphi: myths and reality. J Health Organ Manag. 2003;17(1):37–52.