Almost no trauma simulation studies used automated evaluation; checklists and questionnaires dominated assessment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only 2 of 35 studies provided automated evaluation of training; 18 used prepared checklists or evaluation forms and 4 used purely subjective methods. → Larraga-García 2022

Evidence¶

Larraga-García 2022¶

Larraga-García, B., Quintana-Díaz, M., & Gutiérrez, Á. (2022). Simulation-Based Education in Trauma Management: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013546

q2 · i? · review · r2

Scoping review analysis of evaluation methods; the review reports "only two of the studies provided an automated evaluation of the training delivered", 18 used checklists or prepared evaluation forms, four used subjective methods (interviews, written comments, direct observations), ten used both, and three did not state a method.

"Taking into consideration the evaluation methods, only two of the studies provided an automated evaluation of the training delivered, as shown in Figure 2d."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only 20% of simulation-based trauma training studies targeted medical students during undergraduate training — related
• Objective metrics are used more frequently in simulated environments, while GRS and checklists are used with actual patients — related
• Validity evidence for data-driven assessment tools relies predominantly on construct validity, with 11 of 35 studies using unvalidated tools — related
• Trauma simulation training focused more on hospital than pre-hospital environments — related
• Trauma simulation training focused more on technical than non-technical skills — related