Table 1 Instructor perceptions regarding the implementation of shared courses (N=10)
From: Sharing simulation-based training courses between institutions: opportunities and challenges
How did this shared course compare with developing and delivering a local simulation-based course, in terms of … | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) |
|---|---|---|
Overall course efficiency (effectiveness per instructor time invested) | 4.9 (1.7) | 5 (4–6) |
Overall course educational effectiveness | 4.4 (1.8) | 4 (4–6) |
Time spent preparing (planning, pilot-testing, refining) the course | 5.1 (1.7) | 6 (4–6) |
Time spent delivering the course | 4.2 (1.6) | 4 (4–4) |
Barriers/challenges in preparing the course | 3.6 (1.7) | 4 (2–5) |
Barriers/challenges in delivering the course | 3.5 (1.3) | 4 (3–4) |
Relevance of the course to this specific learner group | 3.8 (1.8) | 4 (3–4) |
Relevance of the course objectives to local needs and clinical practice | 3.8 (1.6) | 4 (3–4) |
Relevance of the course content to local needs and clinical practice | 3.5 (1.7) | 3.5 (2–4) |
Relevance of the course assessment to local needs and clinical practice | 3.7 (1.8) | 4 (2–4) |
Completeness of the course as outlined in curriculum materials | 4.8 (1.8) | 5 (4–6) |
Availability of key resources (e.g., rooms, simulators, materials, support staff) | 4.0 (1.4) | 4 (4–4) |
Preparing/training simulation assets (e.g., programming mannequins, training standardized patients, preparing task models) | 3.8 (1.0) | 4 (4–4) |
Problems with simulation assets | 3.7 (0.9) | 4 (4–4) |