Conceptions of human factors in simulation-based education: a phenomenographic study.

IF 3.6 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alice Kitt, Ranjev Kainth
{"title":"Conceptions of human factors in simulation-based education: a phenomenographic study.","authors":"Alice Kitt, Ranjev Kainth","doi":"10.1186/s41077-026-00462-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Human factors (HF) are integral to patient safety. Simulation-based education (SBE) is widely used to teach HF, yet facilitators conceptualise HF in varied ways. This study explored facilitators' conceptions of HF.</p><p><strong>Methodology and methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenographic study was conducted with 12 SBE facilitators from diverse professional backgrounds. Purposive maximum-variation sampling sought participants from different professions, simulation roles, and educational contexts. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, transcribed verbatim, and analysed iteratively to identify categories of description and an outcome space capturing qualitatively different conceptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four conceptions of HF were identified: (1) HF as a patient-safety science, (2) HF as human-to-human interactions, (3) HF as optimisation of individual performance, and (4) HF as reducing error ('To Err is Human'). Participants sometimes drew on more than one conception, but usually foregrounded one dominant way of understanding HF. The conceptions differed in scope and alignment with HF theory rather than in simple legitimacy. Dimensions influencing conceptions included professional experience, simulation pedagogy, continuous professional development, and approaches to measuring educational quality.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>SBE facilitators hold heterogeneous conceptions of HF, risking inconsistent educational practice. In phenomenographic terms, broader conceptions encompassed aspects visible in narrower ones; this should not be read as a claim that one conception is always the 'best' for every simulation objective. Rather, different educational aims may legitimately foreground different aspects of HF, while systems-informed conceptions align more fully with contemporary HF science. Clearer definitions, stronger faculty development, and closer collaboration between simulation educators and HF specialists may enhance educational design and patient-safety outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13637281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-026-00462-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Human factors (HF) are integral to patient safety. Simulation-based education (SBE) is widely used to teach HF, yet facilitators conceptualise HF in varied ways. This study explored facilitators' conceptions of HF.

Methodology and methods: A qualitative phenomenographic study was conducted with 12 SBE facilitators from diverse professional backgrounds. Purposive maximum-variation sampling sought participants from different professions, simulation roles, and educational contexts. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams, transcribed verbatim, and analysed iteratively to identify categories of description and an outcome space capturing qualitatively different conceptions.

Results: Four conceptions of HF were identified: (1) HF as a patient-safety science, (2) HF as human-to-human interactions, (3) HF as optimisation of individual performance, and (4) HF as reducing error ('To Err is Human'). Participants sometimes drew on more than one conception, but usually foregrounded one dominant way of understanding HF. The conceptions differed in scope and alignment with HF theory rather than in simple legitimacy. Dimensions influencing conceptions included professional experience, simulation pedagogy, continuous professional development, and approaches to measuring educational quality.

Discussion: SBE facilitators hold heterogeneous conceptions of HF, risking inconsistent educational practice. In phenomenographic terms, broader conceptions encompassed aspects visible in narrower ones; this should not be read as a claim that one conception is always the 'best' for every simulation objective. Rather, different educational aims may legitimately foreground different aspects of HF, while systems-informed conceptions align more fully with contemporary HF science. Clearer definitions, stronger faculty development, and closer collaboration between simulation educators and HF specialists may enhance educational design and patient-safety outcomes.

模拟教育中人为因素的概念:一个现象研究。
背景:人为因素(HF)是患者安全不可或缺的一部分。基于模拟的教学(SBE)被广泛用于心衰教学,然而引导者以不同的方式对心衰进行概念化。本研究探讨促进者对高频的概念。方法与方法:对12名不同专业背景的SBE引导者进行定性现象研究。有目的的最大变异抽样寻求来自不同职业、模拟角色和教育背景的参与者。通过Microsoft Teams进行半结构化访谈,逐字记录,并进行迭代分析,以确定描述类别和捕获定性不同概念的结果空间。结果:确定了HF的四个概念:(1)HF是一门患者安全科学,(2)HF是人与人之间的互动,(3)HF是个人表现的优化,(4)HF是减少错误(“犯错是人”)。参与者有时会引用一个以上的概念,但通常会强调一个主要的理解HF的方式。这些概念的不同之处在于范围和与高频理论的一致性,而不是简单的合法性。影响概念的维度包括专业经验、模拟教学法、持续专业发展和测量教育质量的方法。讨论:SBE促进者对HF的概念不同,可能导致教育实践不一致。在现象学术语中,广义概念包含了狭义概念中可见的方面;这不应该被理解为一个概念总是对每个模拟目标的“最佳”。相反,不同的教育目标可能合理地突出心衰的不同方面,而系统知情的概念更充分地符合当代心衰科学。更清晰的定义,更强的师资发展,以及模拟教育工作者和心衰专家之间更密切的合作,可能会提高教育设计和患者安全的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书