Nursing education programs face an increasing challenge: how to help students transition to practice as the number of clinical placements shrink and the costs of placements rise. Many nursing schools are looking to simulation-based education to help bridge this gap (Fey & Jenkins, 2015; Rizzolo, 2013). When simulation complements or substitutes for traditional clinical placements, the quality of educator's debriefing skills is a key factor to leverage the power of simulation (Hayden, Smiley, Alexander, Kardong-Edgren, & Jeffries, 2014). We focus on a key driver of nursing educator debriefing excellence: using a debriefing standard to guide skills building and assess faculty competencies. How does one ''connect the dots'' from educator debriefing standards to student clinical practice? Standards and guidelines for high-impact debriefing create a pathway to improve trainees' hands-on, applied learning using simulation-based education. Well-designed hands-on, simulation-based education, in turn, standardizes and accelerates acquisition of applied skills, instead of relying on time and chance to ensure that trainees are exposed to needed material (

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.

As the use of high fidelity simulation (HFS) in nursing education increases, evidence of its impact on learner self-confidence continues to grow. However, evidence to demonstrate an actual, positive influence on learner competence remains inconsistent. This lack of clear evidence supporting increased clinical competence challenges faculty seeking effective teaching strategies related to HFS. The purpose of this article is to discuss two key challenges in the integration and use of HFS in nursing curricula. The authors review the use of HFS in nursing education and provide a critical discussion of two challenges to incorporating HFS into the nursing curricula: the dangers of risk sensitization and the need for a standardized framework. They conclude that simulation experiences that encompass the element of longitudinal care and patient response, along with further research identifying best practices are needed to provide a sound basis for supporting the use of HFS in nursing education.

The lack of direction and sound empirical evidence to support the use of high fidelity simulation in nursing education has been attributed to the lack theoretically based models that can be used to structure the use of educational simulation. This paper proposes a theoretically-based model called the Knowledge, Action and Reflection (KAR) model that can be used to structure high fidelity simulations. Theories from nursing, education and cognitive psychology were reviewed and synthesized into a comprehensive model that is designed to help educators design, implement, and evaluate high fidelity simulation scenarios for nursing education. The use of a theoretically defined model provides a testable framework to build evidence necessary to identify best practices for educational simulation.

Background: Students often struggle with how to synthesize course content during independent learning outside of class. Problem: Study strategies may be entrenched in ineffective methods that reinforce misperceptions of learning and undermine the development of metacognitive thinking. Approach: To promote the development of effective study skills, a scaffolded approach was developed to facilitate students actively engaging with course content outside of class time, based on best practices of brain science–based learning. Outcomes: Using evidence in the brain science of teaching and learning, Learning Guides were developed to shift the focus of study outside of class time from the “what” to the “how.” Preliminary feedback from students in multiple core nursing courses suggests that these guides are an effective tool for student learning. Conclusion: This brain science–based approach to learning can provide a road map for students to build the essential skills for effective study habits that can lead to durable learning.