ASPiH standards for simulation-based education: process of consultation, design and implementation

Author response to published editorials on ASPiH standards for simulation-based education

“…We welcome the interest that INACSL (Dreifuerst and Mariani),5 SimGHOSTS (Crawford)6 and ASPE (Bohnert and Lewis)7 have shown in the recent publication of our standards. INACSL5 and SimGHOSTS6 highlight the need for an international consensus on the development of future standards and we welcome this in the spirit of advancing the cause of SBE.…”

“…INACSL5 and SimGHOSTS6 highlight the need for an international consensus on the development of future standards and we welcome this in the spirit of advancing the cause of SBE. We must ensure that this does not stifle innovation and prevent development of other standards by organisations across the world to suit the needs of their community.…”

“…Simulation communities must have the freedom to adopt and adapt standards as they see fit. Crawford6 states that the ASPiH standards should not be used outside the UK, while Bohnert and Lewis7 highlight ASPiH’s use of the implementation science framework. They state that ‘ASPiH’s thorough collection of responses to its standards is a benchmark for other organizations to follow.’7 We would therefore argue that ASPiH SBE standards can be used by any simulation provider around the globe, if it suits that community and has buy-in.…”

“…We see the embedding and sustaining of the standards in the community as the next challenge for ASPiH. Crawford6 has highlighted the role of accreditation in quality assurance of SBE. We believe that accreditation has an important role to play.…”

“…Crawford6 has highlighted the issue of accreditation being a money-making vehicle for simulation organisations. ASPiH believes that this should not be the case and has embedded accreditation as a membership benefit,3 incorporating costs into the membership fee structure to encourage more simulation providers to quality assure their practice.…”