When the Mannequin Dies, Creation and Exploration of a Theoretical Framework Using a Mixed Methods Approach

Introduction Controversy exists in the simulation community as to the emotional and educational ramifications of mannequin death due to learner action or inaction. No theoretical framework to guide future investigations of learner actions currently exists. The purpose of our study was to generate a model of the learner experience of mannequin death using a mixed methods approach. Methods The study consisted of an initial focus group phase composed of 11 learners who had previously experienced mannequin death due to action or inaction on the part of learners as defined by Leighton (Clin Simul Nurs. 2009;5(2):e59–e62). Transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory to generate a list of relevant themes that were further organized into a theoretical framework. With the use of this framework, a survey was generated and distributed to additional learners who had experienced mannequin death due to action or inaction. Results were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. Results Forty-one clinicians completed the survey. A correlation was found between the emotional experience of mannequin death and degree of presession anxiety (P < 0.001). Debriefing was found to significantly reduce negative emotion and enhance satisfaction. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated that mannequin death enhanced learning. These results were used to modify our framework. Conclusions Using the previous approach, we created a model of the effect of mannequin death on the educational and psychological state of learners. We offer the final model as a guide to future research regarding the learner experience of mannequin death.

[1]  Bruce Wright,et al.  The emotional and cognitive impact of unexpected simulated patient death: a randomized controlled trial. , 2014, Chest.

[2]  Megan C Boone,et al.  Using simulation to address hierarchy-related errors in medical practice. , 2014, The Permanente journal.

[3]  Joan Sargeant,et al.  Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance. , 2012, Journal of graduate medical education.

[4]  D. Gaba Simulations that are challenging to the psyche of participants: how much should we worry and about what? , 2013, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[5]  Marian Joëls,et al.  Learning under stress: how does it work? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Robert D Truog,et al.  Deception and death in medical simulation. , 2013, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[7]  Lorelei Lingard,et al.  Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Case and Commentary: Using Simulation to Address Hierarchy Issues During Medical Crises , 2013, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[9]  Deborah Ruth Richardson,et al.  Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing , 1983 .

[10]  Jeffrey M. Taekman,et al.  To Die or Not To Die? A Review of Simulated Death , 2013, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[11]  Peter Dieckmann,et al.  Deepening the Theoretical Foundations of Patient Simulation as Social Practice , 2007, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[12]  Ethan Oliver Bryson,et al.  The simulation theater: a theoretical discussion of concepts and constructs that enhance learning. , 2008, Journal of critical care.

[13]  Margarita Burmester,et al.  Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: a debate for a conceptual framework , 2014, BMC medical education.

[14]  E. Bryson,et al.  Adding emotional stressors to training in simulated cardiopulmonary arrest enhances participant performance , 2010, Medical education.

[15]  Sara Hansen,et al.  Debriefing in Simulated-Based Learning: Facilitating a Reflective Discussion , 2010, The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursing.

[16]  K. Leighton Death of a Simulator , 2009 .

[17]  S. Reeves,et al.  Why use theories in qualitative research? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Daniel B. Raemer,et al.  There's No Such Thing as “Nonjudgmental” Debriefing: A Theory and Method for Debriefing with Good Judgment , 2006, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[19]  D. Gaba,et al.  Deception and Simulation Education: Issues, Concepts, and Commentary , 2015, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[20]  Jenny W Rudolph,et al.  Establishing a Safe Container for Learning in Simulation: The Role of the Presimulation Briefing , 2014, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[21]  S. D. de Lacey,et al.  The Timing of the Literature Review in Grounded Theory Research: An Open Mind Versus an Empty Head , 2013, ANS. Advances in nursing science.

[22]  Peter E. Rivard,et al.  Debriefing with good judgment: combining rigorous feedback with genuine inquiry. , 2007, Anesthesiology clinics.

[23]  Gail M Sullivan,et al.  Qualities of qualitative research: part I. , 2011, Journal of graduate medical education.

[24]  L. Lederman Debriefing: Toward a Systematic Assessment of Theory and Practice , 1992 .