Abstract. While decades of criticism have echoed Dudley Andrew’s 1980 call for an end to fidelity discourse, more recent criticism (including by Andrew himself,

High-Fidelity Simulation (HFS) is a misunderstood term. Too often, HFS is mistakenly used to refer to a particular simulation modality, namely, the full-body, high-complexity patient simulator. However, modality and fidelity are two distinct components of simulation design, and both impact the overall effectiveness of the activity.[1] Simulation educators must understand these elements and the separate, yet complementary roles they play in designing a simulation-based learning experience (SBLE). The term high-fidelity simulation is not used consistently throughout simulation literature. Yet, numerous published studies are attempting to measure its influence.[1] Researchers have studied the effect of HFS on student confidence, and anxiety levels,[2][3] compared it to SBLE using lower levels of fidelity,[4] and measured its impact on knowledge and skill acquisition in nearly every healthcare discipline and level of the learner.[5][2][6] The accuracy of any research is dependent upon clear articulation of the study concepts; modality and fidelity are two critical components of SBLE. However, both lack clear and consistent definitions.[1][7][8]

High Fidelity Simulation is a healthcare education methodology that involves the use of sophisticated life-like manikins (sometimes called mannequins) in realistic patient environments. Simulation scenarios can take place anywhere, from austere environments for EMS or Military Simulations, to clinical environments like surgical simulation inside a simulation centers. These complex manikins, which are also known as

Explore what role does fidelity play in simulation training. Also get to know the extent to which models from SEM trainers are realistic.

Simulation is an experiential learning process which provides a safe environment for learning, preventing the risk of patient harm. A review of the li…

ffects of HFS may inform the improvement of nursing training. Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the learning effectiveness score of HFS, its influencing factors, and the learning experience of nursing students. Methods A convergent parallel mixed-methods research design was adopted. Five hundred thirty-three third-year undergraduate nursing students completed the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory. Semistructured interviews were used to elicit the opinions of 22 participants regarding their participation in the HFS experience. Results The quantitative findings showed a moderately high learning effectiveness of HFS among Chinese undergraduate nursing students (121.81 ± 14.93). The learning effectiveness for equipment resources (15.02 ± 2.38), course arrangement (11.18 ± 1.73), and confidence (18.56 ± 3.67) was relatively low. Extroversion and mixed personality (β = 0.14 and 0.10) and “dislike” or “general like” of the course (β = −0.45 and −0.33) were found to influence learning effectiveness (F = 54.79, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .29). In addition, the qualitative findings indicated that the participants felt positively regarding the “debriefing,” “clinical abilities,” and “problem solving” dimensions of the training. Conclusions/Implications for Practice The focus of the education process and curriculum design of HFS activities should be on improving course arrangement, equipment resources, and students' confidence while paying attention to nursing students' personality traits and course preferences....

Read our guide on UGC. Learn how UGC differs from traditional marketing, and gain insights. Get inspired with real-life examples for your marketing campaigns.

A model obfuscation method to make the AI model "unreadable".