Is simulation a substitute for real life clinical experiences in Midwifery? A qualitative examination of the perceptions of educational leaders
- Authors: McKenna, Lisa , Bogossian, Fiona , Hall, Helen , Bady, S , Fox-Young, Stephanie , Cooper, Simon J.
- Date: 2011
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Nurse Education Today Vol. 31, no. 7 (2011), p. 682-686
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: This paper describes the perceptions of midwifery educational leaders concerning the potential for simulation to provide a realistic experience in midwifery education. A qualitative design was employed using focus groups which were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Eleven focus groups were conducted with 46 key midwifery academics across Australia. Three main themes emerged relating to realism and simulation in midwifery practice: 'we already use a lot of simulation', 'level of realism of manikins', and 'some things cannot be simulated'. Simulation is currently widely used in midwifery education, but this is limited due to realism of available models and equipment. Despite this, within a woman-centred, holistic approach to care there are many aspects of midwifery practice that cannot be easily simulated. There is a need for research and development of realistic simulation approaches to support the enhanced use of simulation. Furthermore, strategies for developing approaches that reflect midwifery care provision need to be developed.
The perspectives of Australian midwifery academics on barriers and enablers for simulation in midwifery education in Australia: a focus group study
- Authors: Fox-Young, Stephanie , Brady, Susannah , Brealy, W , Cooper, Simon J. , McKenna, Lisa , Hall, Helen , Bogossian, Fiona
- Date: 2012
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Midwifery Vol. 28, no. 4 (2012), p. 435-441
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objective: To describe Australian midwifery academics' perceptions of the current barriers and enablers for simulation in midwifery education in Australia and the potential and resources required for simulation to be increased. Design: A series of 11 focus groups/interviews were held in all states and territories of Australia with 46 participating academics nominated by their heads of discipline from universities across the country. Findings: Three themes were identified relating to barriers to the extension of the use of simulated learning environments (SLEs) ('there are things that you can't simulate'; 'not having the appropriate resources'; and professional accreditation requirements) and three themes were identified to facilitate SLE use ('for the bits that you're not likely to see very often in clinical'; ['for students] to figure something out before [they] get to go out there and do it on the real person'; and good resources and support). Key conclusion: Although barriers exist to the adoption and spread of simulated learning in midwifery, there is a long history of simulation and a great willingness to enhance its use among midwifery academics in Australia. Implications for practice: While some aspects of midwifery practice may be impossible to simulate, more collaboration and sharing in the development and use of simulation scenarios, equipment, space and other physical and personnel resources would make the uptake of simulation in midwifery education more widespread. Students would therefore be exposed to the best available preparation for clinical practice contributing to the safety and quality of midwifery care.