Evaluating Clinical Procedures, Staff And The Entire Hospital Setting (Essay Sample)

Clinical Evaluation Tool
Institution
Name
Clinical Evaluation Tool
Introduction
The Simulation Design Scale is a clinical evaluation tool that employs a five-point scale. This scale is designed to evaluate five select features of developed clinical simulations. These simulations find use in Laerdal study. The scale features include set objectives, support component, feedback, problem-solving and realism elements (Schoening, Sittner & Todd, 2006). The instrument is composed of two relative parts; the first part functions to inquire about the occurrence of given specific features in the simulation. The second part of the tool deals with the magnitude of the elements that the student learns. This instrument was developed based on the Cronbach alpha test. The tool records a 0.92 score in features present and 0.96 for the importance of the features. While fidelity simulation is a growing trend in nursing education, there is an increased need to evaluate the skills and the importance of such a problem to the education sector. This paper criticizes the simulation design scale from strengths and weaknesses view, components and the associated problems or concerns in an attempt to recommend solutions.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Firstly, simulation is an area where a student can make mistakes in a safe environment without any given threat to patient safety. This tool is, therefore, critical for ensuring that these mistakes do not happen at all in a real-life situation. The simulation design scale functions to improve the student's perception and skills in a medical context. A good example is the Human Patient Simulator (HPS) used in educational settings to enable the student experience a real-life like experience with a mannequin patient. It is arguable that the tool assesses the initial information provided to the students before the session with the mannequin (Schoening, Sittner & Todd, 2006).
Secondly, the tool eliminates the use of random learning through the provision of standardized clinical experiences and clearly spelled goals to achieve for all. The issue of random learning evokes confusion and maximizes errors as opposed to a standardized learning experience. This strength ensures that all students follow a particular learning path as opposed to multiple paths. This is arguably aimed at patient safety.
Thirdly the tool is flexible. Any learning scenario involving simulations can be tailored to fit and be evaluated using the tool. In general, the tool incorporates multiple evaluations for several simulation scenarios in one. In addition, errors, made on these different scenarios are well discussed and corrected. This is ensured through responsiveness and likening any given scenario to a real-life situation.
Lastly, there is no option of right or wrong depicted in the tool. It only allows for individual perceptions of agreement or disagreement. This is crucial in eliminating any bias or ranks as a result of the evaluation. The Cronbach score shows exceptional reliability to this tool to deliver accurate results by minimizing the risks of features in the scenarios. Couple with the neutrality of the answers that the tool allows, it is arguable that the student perceptions and skills are put to maximum considerations. This is because each and every student falls somewhere within the allowed parameters allowing for easy capture of the diversity of student skills for any given scenario.
The tool possesses some weaknesses that are inevitable throughout any simulation activity in learning. Firstly, it can only be used to evaluate simulation scenarios. In general, the tool does not allow for other non-simulation evaluations. The lack of diversity in different situations segregates the tool based on its purpose. It is arguable that simulation is not used on a daily basis. Therefore the tool provides inconsistent evaluation which can be disputed.
Lastly, the neutrality of the answers does not motivate the student to realize the availability of the provided features in the simulation scenario. It is critical to note that this opens an option for cheating and hence incorrect results.
Formal and Summative Evaluation
Formative assessment is aimed at monitoring the student for purposes of providing ongoing feedback. This allows the students to improve their learning and for the instructor to improve their teaching technique. The first part of the simulation design tool provides for the formative assessment. The student and the instructor are allowed to make changes based on results. For example, if there was enough information submitted to the student during the simulation, this means that the instructor makes no changes, but the students have a chance to correct errors and mistakes based on the results of the entire process (Jeffries, 2012).
Secondly, formative evaluation allows for the teaching faculty to identify problem areas and struggling students. This is provided for in the second part of the tool; support. If the need for support, by the student, is recognized or not serves as a starting point for correction by both parties. For example, a student strongly agreeing with the support component means that the faculty can effectively identify the struggling students from the results of the simulation. The identification process is based on the failure of students to reach a given parameter in ranks of the simulation lesson.
Lastly, formative assessment allows for reflective guidance. This is entirely based on feedback provision and guidance. This allows for both parties to identify and mitigate any form of instructional malfunction. The feedback/ guided reflection component in the tool lays more emphasis on the student than the instructor. However, this element offers an avenue for both parties to make changes based on the evaluation. For example an opportunity to receive feedback from the teacher or instructor after the simulation or a chance for the student to analyses their behavior and actions. These two variables allow both the student and the instructor to improve their performance in the next simulation lesson. Formative assessments are focused on low stakes of the learning techniques. Jeffries (2012) argues that these low stakes sum up the low point value of formative assessments.
Summative components have a high point value. This sums up the fact they are high stakes in the entire nursing program. The primary objective of summative components is to determine the level of understanding and learning as achieved at the end of any instructional or simulation lesson. This is done by comparison of the level of learning against a benchmark or a standard of some sort. The emphasis of testing acquired skills is evident in the problem-solving component. It is arguable that all the components give some challenge to the student. In problem-solving, the student is required to measure their skills against some preset competencies in the industry, for example, setting priorities in nursing and care. The ability of the students to agree or disagree that the simulation gives them a chance prioritize shows that there are some preset priorities that the student should achieve throughout their course of study. Disagreeing means that the instructor or the teaching methods are either vague o the student is struggling (Kleijnen, 2008).
Similarly, the fidelity or realism component is critical in summative evaluation. The student has to show that they understand both aspects of simulation and real-life situations. The preset standard is the real-life situation. The student uses the simulator to evoke a real-life experience for purposes of learning in a mistake and error free environment based on patient safety (Jeffries, 2012).
It is arguable that the summative evaluation is the link to the formal evaluations. This means that the two correspond in some of the ...