|
Clinical Guides
|
Prepared by 3 professors. |
Elaborated by 7 professors and discussed with everyone. |
Prepared by 3 professors and discussed with everyone. |
Prepared by 3 professors and discussed with everyone. |
Prepared by 3 professors and discussed with everyone. |
|
Setting
|
3 practice rooms and 1 waiting room (adapted in classrooms). |
3 practice rooms and 1 waiting room (adapted in classrooms). |
1 practice room and 1 waiting room (use of clinical simulation laboratory). |
1 practice room and 1 waiting room (use of clinical simulation laboratory). |
1 practice room and 1 waiting room (use of clinical simulation laboratory). |
|
Nº of "Simulated Patients" required per day
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
Days of the activity
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
Nº of students/class
|
18 |
18 |
18 |
26 |
26 |
|
Nº of students/group
|
6 |
6 |
6 |
A group of 12 and one of 14. |
A group of 12 and one of 14. |
|
Nº of professors/group
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
|
Debriefing
|
Carried out by 2 professors: 1 from Primary Care and 1 from Mental Health. Collective. |
Carried out by 2 professors: 1 from Primary Care and 1 from Mental Health. Collective. |
Carried out by 2 professors: 1 from Primary Care and 1 from Mental Health. Collective. |
Carried out by 4 professors: 1 from Primary Care, 1 from Mental Health and 2 from the simulation committee. Collective. |
Carried out by 4 professors: 1 from Primary Care, 1 from Mental Health and 2 from the simulation committee. Collective. |
|
Recording
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Simultaneous transmission
|
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Nº of students/setting
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Checklist
|
For Professor: 40 items |
For Professor: 40 items |
For Professor: 40 items |
For Professor: 11 items
For students who attended the attendance 5 items. For students who attended 4 items |
For Professor: 11 items
For students who attended the attendance 5 items. For students who attended 4 items. |
|
Setbacks
|
- 60 minutes delay to start activities
- Problems with equipment for simultaneous transmission |
- Delay of 30 minutes to start activities
- Absence of several students. |
|
|
|
|
Observations made at meetings with professors and students
|
- A very productive strategy, boosts the reflection of those involved.
- The students felt judged and evaluated with simultaneous transmission.
- The students missed a road map for attendance.
- Lack of a previous moment the activity to discuss collectively with students the teaching strategy and its objectives. |
- Divergence of opinion among students about the productivity of clinical simulation for learning.
- Requested that the groups discuss the will to continue with the activity at the third expected time. |
- The students emphasized that the possibility of watching the video of the service makes them reflect on their attitude, actions and decision making.
- There was a growth of the students in the process of realizing and receiving the positive and negative critics about each service. |
- Students highlighted the productivity of the strategy and boostd reflection on the need for listening and the humanization of care.
- Suggestion to record at the beginning of the morning all the calls to later start the debriefing. |
- The diversification of clinical cases was considered very positive.
- The students emphasized again the importance of using this strategy to reflect their actions and also to perceive the weaknesses of knowledge.
- The operational structure was evaluated as very productive. |
|
Reflections
|
- Productive and viable strategy, requiring adjustments to achieve the goal.
- Review the quality of the equipment used.
- The need for a previous meeting with all professors involved in conducting the clinical simulation groups on the clinical case and the focus of the debriefing.
- Need to have a later time to theoretically discuss with students the weaknesses evidenced. |
- The need for a collective engagement of the group of professors for the success of the strategy.
- The opinion of the professor accompanying the group has a great influence on the students' opinion.
- Professors need to have more control over the conduct of clinical simulation and especially about debriefing. |
- The need to develop clinical simulation as a potential pedagogical strategy for the development of reflection, criticality and autonomy of students.
- It is necessary to create a new operational structure to develop clinical simulation in the subject, aiming to reduce the number of rooms in activities simultaneously and a way to have greater uniformity in the conduct of the debriefing. |
- The lower number of settings allowed for more tranquility in the development of the attendances, having availability of quality equipment to record and attend the attendances.
- The structure used to operationalize favored that the conduction of the debriefing had similar focuses of discussion of clinical cases.
- Discussion with professors is needed on how to intervene with students at the time of debriefing.
- Having two committee professors in the group led to the achievement of the expected objectives. |
- Simulation is a strategy that boosts the reflection of the student and professors and allows the student to attend critical cases without risk to himself or the patient.
- Conducting the debriefing by professors who were deeply involved with the strategy, provides better development and achievement of expected objectives.
- The organization of larger groups proved to be productive and viable. |
