Psychological safety of remotely facilitated simulation compared with in-person-facilitated simulation: an <i>in situ</i> experimental controlled trial

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic motivated simulation educators to attempt various forms of distance simulation in order to maintain physical distancing and to rapidly deliver training and ensure systems preparedness. However, the perceived psychological safety in distance simulation remains largely unknown. A psychologically unsafe environment can negatively impact team dynamics and learning outcomes; therefore, it merits careful consideration with the adoption of any new learning modality. Between October 2020 and April 2021, 11 rural and remote hospitals in Alberta, Canada, were enrolled by convenience sampling in in-person-facilitated simulation (IPFS) (n = 82 participants) or remotely facilitated simulation (RFS) (n = 66 participants). Each interprofessional team was invited to attend two COVID-19-protected intubation simulation sessions. An There was no statistically significant difference between RFS and IPFS total scores on the Psychological safety can be established and maintained with RFS. Furthermore, in this study, RFS was shown to be comparable to IPFS in improving psychological safety among rural and remote interdisciplinary teams, providing simulation educators another modality for reaching any site or team.