Findings from a human roles terminology survey: consensus or chaos?

• Published in: BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning 2020-05, Vol.6 (3), p.158-163
• Main Authors: Sanko, Jill Steiner, Schneidereith, Tonya, Cowperthwait, Amy, Onello, Rachel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Best practice; Data analysis; Dictionaries; Education; Nursing; Original Research; Polls & surveys; Simulation; Teaching; Terminology
• ISSN: 2056-6697; 2056-6697
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2018-000378

BackgroundTerminology describing humans’ roles in simulation varies widely. Inconsistent nomenclature is problematic because it inhibits use of a common language, impacting development of a cohesive body of knowledge.MethodsA literature search was completed to identify terms used to describe roles played by humans in simulation-based education. Based on these findings, a survey was created to explore the terminology used by simulation educators and researchers to describe human roles in simulation and the perceived need for a consistent nomenclature.ResultsResults demonstrated wide variability in terminology, including terms such as standardised patient, simulated patient, simulated participants, confederate, embedded actor and scenario role player.ConclusionCreation of a cohesive body of knowledge for human roles in simulation requires use of common terminology, yet findings suggest a complex landscape of terminology. Building consensus on the terminology describing human roles in simulation can clarify understanding of best practice and allow for advancement in the research and state of the science in simulation-based education.