A state-wide approach to closing the gap between simulation have and have nots

Methodology: A keyword search of peer reviewed journal articles was conducted to identify reports of state-wide or regional simulation networks. The search excluded national simulation networks, individual centres with regional catchments, earlier than 2005 and not in English were excluded from the search. Secondary references and grey literature searches were conducted where necessary to augment information from peer reviewed literature. A total of 11 papers describing six networks were identified.

Analysis: Papers were reviewed by each member of research team to identify themes, with rationalisation to identify common themes. Emergent themes related to formation and funding, mission, foundational principles/philosophies, strategic developments, approaches to implementation, engagement and sustainability. Data from each paper were extracted into templates based upon thematic categories.

Results: Networks were generally led by universities or health service organisations. Establishing governance, mission and philosophy were key steps. The nature of most networks involved the coming together of existing organisations (with their own governance) as an alliance to leverage capacity and efficiency through size (1, 2). Few networks were established with a formal board with shared governance and financial entities to manage aggregated resources (3). One network is virtual in character (4). Mission statements tended to fall into two categories depending on the agency leading the network formation. Effective safe health care was common to networks with strong association with health care organisations (including army (5), whilst collaboration and evidence/research were more common strategies in networks with university relationships and/or members at very different levels of maturity regarding simulation based education. Principles or philosophies were important considerations for how the network would operate. Where explicitly stated, these commonly included interprofessionalism (though one is uniprofessional (6), collaboration (1), openness, sharing and collaboration, passion (2). Strategic planning typically identified five main areas of activity. The key strategy common to all networks involved “Enablers” that facilitated collaboration and supported all simulation SimHealth 2014 - Works in Progress sites e.g. communication platform. The other areas involved (i) education/curriculum, (ii) training and professional development related to operation of simulation sites, (iii) infrastructure and asset management and (iv) evidence and research. Research was more commonly associated with university led networks than hospital led networks. Implementation approaches almost always involved a regional or state-wide needs analysis as a first step, usually accompanied by consultation and data gathering exercises. Other activities were dependent upon strategic plans. Sustainability was not always a key consideration in network formation. Some networks developed independent income streams e.g. HealthCare Simulation South Carolina established a commercial curriculum business (7). Most networks were not at a stage of maturity to demonstrate sustainability outcomes at the time of publishing. These processes have formed the basis of a best practice model for the establishment of the Tasmanian Simulation Collaborative, funded in part through the HWA Simulated Learning Environments Project.