Choosing the right university and programme is crucial for aspiring nursing students and their families. With so many options available, it can be challenging to make an informed decision [1-3]. The aim of this initiative was to provide student nurse offer-holders and their parents/partners with an overview of the undergraduate nursing programme’s content, in an effort to encourage them to select the right university.

Activity:

The initiative was developed and conducted over six months (Dec 2022 - May 2023). It consisted of five Saturday morning sessions, each included taster lectures, clinical skills sessions, and simulations with actor role players. Offer-holders attended one rotation, while the parents/partners of offer-holders attended another rotation. The facilitated simulations were collaboratively designed by the University branch specialists and the education provider, and involved actor role players. In order to cover child, adult and mental health branches, for aspiring students, the scenario content was broad based and applicable to all. -

Scenario 1: Communication with relatives of a baby failing to thrive

Scenario 2: Communication with an adult patient and her husband

Both simulations were conducted as forum theatre and aligned with NHS values.

Findings:

Evaluation forms completed by potential nursing students and their parents/partners were overwhelmingly positive. Attendees reported that the sessions were informative and enjoyable, with the simulations being a particular highlight. The use of actor role players helped to make the simulations more realistic and engaging. Attendees felt that the sessions assisted them to better understand what to expect from the nursing programme, which would aid them in making a more informed decision about which university to choose.

Conclusion:

Offer holders and their families need to make an informed decision when choosing a nursing programme. The study showed that providing a comprehensive overview of the programme’s content through taster lectures, clinical skills sessions, and simulations can be an effective way to encourage students to select the right university. The use of actor role players in the simulations helped to create a realistic and engaging learning experience for attendees. Overall, this initiative highlights the importance of providing potential nursing students with the necessary information to make a decision about their education. By making an informed decision, the fit is likely to be right and the chances of attrition reduced. Further studies will be conducted by the university admissions teams to establish if these tasters assist with retention.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

There is significant variation of foundation programme tracks across the United Kingdom, giving a range of clinical exposure to newly qualified doctors [1]. Common themes in tracks can be identified to include acute/emergency, community, general medicine, surgery and psychiatry components. In the deanery, many Foundation Trainees (FTs) on psychiatry will have up to 3 additional simulation days devoted to psychiatry themes and this is felt to be an especially effective way to supplement education on psychiatry consultation skills [2]. FTs who do not have psychiatry posts will not have the opportunity to attend this training. Typically, mandatory foundation simulation training focuses on human factors related to acute medical and surgical problems [3]. Our education department has developed a pilot programme to support simulation training on key mental health consultations to support well rounded training of FTs.

Activity:

Half day sessions have been delivered to small groups of FTs who do not have psychiatry posts. Faculty has included experienced simulation faculty and psychiatry doctors and the scenarios conducted in a small group format with professional actors playing patients for increased realism of scenarios. The participants rotated between 3 key scenarios covering essential themes of mental state examination, psychiatry team liaison, patient risk assessment and explaining mental health presentations.

Findings:

2 sessions have been delivered for a total of 18 FTs. FTs showed insight to a number of challenges related to mental health presentations they had experienced outside of psychiatric settings and this formed the outline of the learning objectives for the session. The participants further reflected on discussions in their feedback from the session and portfolio. The sessions were well received, with improvement in confidence in managing these consultations demonstrated in pre and post course survey comparison from the majority of participants. Given the initial success of the session, the team is building a database of local faculty for continuity of the course and looking to secure relevant funding from HEE to provide further sessions for the FTs in the next academic year.

Conclusion:

This simulation pilot has shown promise to be a useful addition to supplement the education of FTs for mental health consultations applicable in all areas of their clinical practice.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Final year medical students are often anxious about commencing foundation training and feel underprepared for the practical responsibilities they are expected to conduct independently [1]. Consequently, a full day programme was created to facilitate immersive simulation of a typical working day of a Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctor.

Aim: To provide an enriching programme empowering final year medical students to experience the practical aspects of foundation training (including areas of expressed difficulty), whilst creating a safe and realistic learning environment and providing opportunities for interprofessional learning and near-peer teaching.

Methods:

Junior doctors from FY1s to Medical Registrars delivered the programme’s content. In the morning, three interprofessional simulation scenarios were delivered to the medical students and included nursing students for added realism. Each scenario reflected common ward-based and acute-setting situations that had minimal coverage in their undergraduate curricula. Afternoon stations were created to attenuate the medical students’ anxieties about the aspects of foundation training they perceived as difficult. Using a simulated ward, a mock handover was conducted. Students were then expected to complete the tasks of death verification, complex prescribing and female catheterization. The other stations simulated interpreting blood results, discussions with a microbiologist and requesting and discussing radiological imaging. During completion of all stations, the medical students carried and answered a bleep mimicking realistic distractions. Morning and afternoon debriefing occurred in small groups.

Results:

Following programme completion, all the medical students (n = 21) felt more confident in assessing deteriorating patients, escalating to a senior and felt better prepared to commence foundation training. Though not statistically significant (p = 0.2), confidence to commence foundation training and preparedness to perform the clinical and practical responsibilities of an FY1 quadrupled. In addition, over 50% of the medical students felt better able to independently prioritize clinical tasks and undertake complex prescribing on completion of this programme. Qualitative data suggested the medical students found the morning of interprofessional learning (IPL) invaluable and sought future IPL opportunities as they felt this made the programme even more realistic of working life. Furthermore, students felt the programme created a safe learning environment and was relevant in their preparation for foundation training as they felt more confident and better prepared to troubleshoot and apply their knowledge in unknown clinical situations.

Conclusion:

‘FY1 for a day’ is an effective and sustainable educational programme to potently prepare final year medical students for their foundation training whilst safeguarding psychological safety and fortifying multidisciplinary relationships.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

An assessment of mental capacity involves determining if a person can make a decision, or whether this needs to be done in their best interests [1]. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, provides a legal framework that protects people who might not be able to make decisions for themselves and guides professionals during their practice. Research has shown inconsistencies on how the Mental Capacity Act is applied in health and social care settings [2], therefore ensuring that professionals have are provided with the right support to confidently apply the act should be a priority. Simulation has been effectively used in healthcare education [3] and could also be implemented to support this area of practice. The Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’s Simulation Team and Adult Safeguarding Team, jointly worked in developing a simulation-based session which focused on mental capacity assessments in different situations. The aim of these sessions was to increase participants’ confidence to assess mental capacity and to manage challenging conversations during assessment.

Activity:

Scenarios were designed for hospital and community settings, the topics covered included consent to treatment, self-discharge, compliance with treatment, substance misuse, mental health problems, dementia and learning disability. The target audience was senior healthcare professionals that are regularly involved in making decisions related to mental capacity. Scenarios were designed to be flexible and adaptable according to the attendants’ needs, for example the learning disability scenarios involved the use of easy read information that was specifically provided or created. Actors were used for the role of patients or relatives, and members of the adult safeguarding team were part of the faculty to support or lead the debrief process.

Findings:

Between January 2023 and February 2023, the faculty delivered 3 sessions, with a total of 20 participants from different professional groups including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. Anonymous feedback was collected at the end of each session, with 84.62% (n = 13) of respondents reporting their confidence in assessing mental capacity had increased. This led to gaining funding to continue delivering more sessions in 2023.

Conclusion:

Studies have shown that healthcare professionals’ confidence in applying the mental capacity act can vary [2]. Solely focusing on traditional forms of education might not be enough to prepare our workforce, in this case simulation-based training has provided a valuable tool to enhance participant’s abilities in relation to the mental capacity act and its application in healthcare practice.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (2010), states ‘Interprofessional education occurs when two or more professionals learn about, from and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes’ [1]. When healthcare students enter the practice workplace, they are required to work in an interprofessional team and make collaborative decisions to provide safe and effective patient care. With the increasing complexity of patient presentation, increase in life expectancy and disability years coupled with the challenges of resource and delivery within the healthcare system it is vital that practitioners have solid foundational skills in interprofessional working.

To facilitate this healthcare educators are being required to think of innovative, authentic and contemptuous pedagogical tools to demonstrate interprofessional working, collaboration and interdisciplinary role awareness.

Activity:

To provide healthcare students with meaningful exposure to interpersonal working educators at Birmingham City University embarked on the design and delivery of a live simulated patient case conference. To promote authenticity the case conference was designed (with consent) around a living patient (Jake) with complex medical and social needs. A team of healthcare educators each took the roles of clinicians from both health, social and tertiary care service. A round table discussion was held related to Jakes’s inpatient care and decisions regarding hospital discharge. Jake has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and substantial medical, social and occupational needs. Jake’s mum is also present, demonstrating the need to have patient and carer collaboration. The session was observed live by students but also filmed and edited into an ongoing simulation learning resource with both clinical and non-clinical learning objectives. A facilitated debrief was held after the session.

Findings:

Feedback and anecdotal analysis of the session showed greater student engagement and understanding of the needs for interprofessional collaboration when discussing patient care and decision-making. The use of a real and living patient meant students could immerse themselves in Jake’s story and feel true empathy with his clinical case. For some students’ knowledge of interprofessional working and the roles of other disciplines proves a challenging concept to master.

Conclusion:

It is feasible and effective to utilize simulation (live and virtual) as a method of teaching hard to grasp but vital concepts of healthcare practice including interprofessional working and interdisciplinary role awareness.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) are one of the important upcoming reforms to the Mental Health Act in the UK [1]. The aim of the document is to allow service users greater autonomy when they are well, to make decisions and guide what happens if they become unwell in the future. It is created by a service user and clinician in a shared decision-making process.

Maudsley Learning (ML) collaborated with an Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience research team to provide a co-produced simulation day for service users, carers and clinicians. The aim was for participants to be able to gain a greater understanding of how to co-produce and implement ACDs.

Methods:

ML ran two separate simulation days, alongside, members of the research team including a lawyer and facilitator with lived experience.

The initial part of the day included didactic teaching; allowing participants to learn more about ACDs and have a space to ask questions from those with lived experience, clinicians and lawyers. This ensured participants gained a baseline level of knowledge to undertake the scenarios.

There were four simulation scenarios written, but only three took place on both days because of limited time. These revolved around one patient; the participants followed the patient through their ACD journey. The patient was played by an actor. All scenarios were designed to involve a clinician, often with the presence of a carer and service user as well.

The debrief consisted of a modified Pendleton model with feedback from service user, carers and clinicians to allow feedback and learning from all involved.

Results:

Participants were asked to complete a pre-course and post-course questionnaire. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to analyse the difference between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results demonstrated a significant difference in scores for course-specific questions between the pre (M = 3.17, SD = 0.81) and post (M = 4.21, SD = 0.20), t(5) = -5.26, p <.05, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.53], with a large effect size of d = -2.15. 100% of participants would recommend this course.

Conclusion:

This was the first simulation that ML has run with a mixed group of learners that included not only clinicians, but also service users and carers taking part in the simulation and debrief. The feedback was positive and helped to improve the knowledge around ACD’s. It was also noticeable the positive difference it made having clinicians, service users and carers learning from one another.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Uncertainty is a prevalent concept within medicine, intrinsic to clinical decision-making. Managing uncertainty can be challenging, especially in specialties (i.e. General Practice) where unclear diagnoses are common. This has resulted in curriculums for such specialities introducing teaching on managing uncertainty [1]. With poor tolerance of uncertainty associated with negative outcomes in medical students [2], there is a strong argument that medical schools need to prepare students to manage uncertainty. Uncertainty simulation cases have been utilized to achieve immersive teaching on uncertainty [3], however this is limited by the resources made available by simulation departments, restricting the potential reach of this transformative learning.

Aim: To deliver an immersive teaching programme for medical students that develops skills in managing uncertainty within a minimal resource environment.

Activity:

8 teaching sessions with 46 students were facilitated, which involved students rotating through a circuit of 5 simulated General Practice consultation stations. Students firstly performed the station and then acted as the patient for the next candidate in a continuous cycle (Figure 1-A73). Feedback was provided after each station. The station cases introduced elements of uncertainty ranging from diagnostic, management or closing/safety-netting. Feedback was collected after each session assessing confidence in managing uncertainty and GP scenarios.

Figure 1-A73:

Circuit Rotation Design – Students started the circuit acting as either the doctor or patient for stations 1-5. After each 10-minute station, there were two minutes for feedback. Students then rotated in a clockwise direction becoming the patient for the station they had previously performed or performing a new station. The students continued to rotate according to this carousel circuit design until they had performed and examined all five stations

Findings:

Students responded positively to the teaching programme, rating its provision of confidence in managing uncertainty and managing GP scenarios (real and OSCE) as >95%. Enjoyment of the sessions was rated at 97% with main aspects being: variety of stations and interactivity. Usefulness of the sessions was rated at 98% with main aspects being: chance to practice, range of cases, receiving feedback. Simulations of GP consultations were rated as highly representative; this was achieved with minimal resources.

Conclusion:

This teaching programme developed medical students’ confidence and skills in managing uncertainty. They also felt better prepared for managing patients in a GP setting. Critical to the success of this programme was the enjoyment and perceived usefulness of the teaching, as this improved engagement with the learning outcomes. With the cohort being final year students that were integrating knowledge from previous clinical years, we hypothesize that the usefulness was due to students wanting to focus more on revision and opportunities to develop skills in managing less commonly taught but clinically important abstract concepts, such as managing uncertainty. Further programmes should expand on the simulated environments (ED, medical/surgical on-calls) and managing other clinically important abstract concepts (confrontations, prioritization, errors).

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

As a human-factors focused simulation centre, we begin all our simulation courses with a human factors workshop introducing participants to the SEIPS model of human factors [1]. This enables them to explore systems-based impacts on clinical practice during post-scenario debriefs. However, we have noticed that some participants struggle to identify and discuss human factor themes which impact on them in their workplace. We aimed to develop an innovative teaching aid which would promote participant understanding and engagement.

Activity:

Previous experience has provided evidence that participants enjoy simulation games. Therefore, we chose to develop a table-top game to play with participants based on the SEIPS work system. We worked with interprofessional colleagues to identify factors that help and hinder processes in the work system and categorized them under SEIPS headings. We made a series of cards based on these factors which participants collect. The winner was the person who collected a helpful card for each SEIPS heading first.

Findings:

We have piloted our SEIPS game with interprofessional faculty, including those with specialist expertise in human factors in healthcare. We surveyed participants to obtain feedback. Survey results so far include data contained in Table 1-A50, and the following participant comments:

‘Play’ is a kinaesthetic way of learning and helps embed ideas and thinking. It also can create opportunities for discussion on different headings for human factors and systems thinking.

The examples are fun but are also realistic so helps you see how HF is relevant. With the examples of human factors in the game it could be useful for staff with little clinical experience.

Liked the competitive element and the examples helped expand on what SEIPS was and how it could be relevant to lots of areas.

Table 1-A50:

SEIPS game participant survey results

100% of participants enjoyed playing the SEIPS game.

100% of participants felt the SEIPS game could increase participants understanding of human factors in healthcare.

100% of participants felt the SEIPS game could help participants identify human factors impacts on their own work system.

Conclusion:

We have developed a SEIPS game to facilitate discussion of human factors in healthcare. This novel approach has received positive initial feedback following our pilot. We are confident we can now move forward to integrate our SEIPS game into our Foundation Doctor’s simulation programme from August 2023. Following this, we intend to continue the process of data collection and analysis, with the intention of incorporating our SEIPS game more widely across simulation courses within various clinical specialties in future.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Traditionally the focus of simulation has been centred on clinical management. More recently there has been a drive to enhance training on ‘human factors’ [1]. In simulation, human factors can be challenging to replicate, particularly with regards to how individuals interact within a system.

At GSTT we introduced a concept known as ‘social GRACES’ into simulation training. Social GRACES, first described by John Burnham in 1992 [2], outline a framework to understand an individual’s personal and social identity.

An abundance of research into the development of human factors skills exists in the literature. Our aim was to integrate social GRACES into our simulation programme as a novel approach to engage trainees with human factors.

Methods:

Between October 2022- April 2023, there were 23 full-day simulation training days. The course started with an introduction on human factors and the social GRACES. This was followed by a ‘lost at sea’ activity where trainees worked individually and in teams to prioritize the items they would take if lost at sea. This was followed by 4 clinical scenarios with debriefs related to clinical management, human factors and social GRACES. Pre and post course questionnaires were disseminated, and delegates were consented for data being used for quality improvement. Unique identifiers allowed for paired data analysis.

Results:

101 pre-course and 138 post-course feedback forms were received. To allow for paired analysis, only completion of both questionnaires was included, leaving 83 responses. There was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of responders who strongly agreed they felt confident in recognizing (7.2%-35.2%), assessing (15.7%-43.4%), managing (3.6%-20.5%) and escalating care (15.7%-35%), in acutely unwell patients. Additionally, confidence improved in understanding the impact of human factors in delivering care (9.6%-35%) and the performance of healthcare professionals (9.6%-39.8%). We explored confidence with regards to the practical implementation of human factors in healthcare (Table 1-A40).

Table 1-A40:

10 questions were devised to assess confidence relating to practical aspects of human factors in healthcare with regards to teamwork, communication, and leadership. Following paired data analysis, we found a statistically significant improvement in confidence in all areas investigated.

Question – On a scale of 1-10 rate your confidence in: -	Pre course	Post course	p value
Constructively managing others’ negative emotions at work	6.1	7.8	<0.001
Requesting help from colleagues in other professions	8.0	8.6	<0.001
Communicating effectively with a colleague with whom you disagree	5.9	7.6	<0.001
Prioritizing when many things are happening at once	6.2	7.9	<0.001
Speaking up as part of a team to convey what you think is going on	6.2	8.2	<0.001
Involving colleagues in your decision-making process	7.4	8.3	<0.001
Dealing with uncertainty in your decision-making process	6.0	7.5	<0.001
Asking other team members for the information I need during a busy ward environment	6.8	8.0	<0.001
Recognizing when you should take on a leadership role	6.0	7.9	<0.001
Monitoring the ‘big picture’ during a complex clinical situation	5.8	7.7	<0.001
Anticipating what will happen next in clinical situations	5.7	7.6	<0.001
Working effectively with a new team in clinical situations	6.6	8.1	<0.001

Conclusion:

The results demonstrate that the interplay between managing acute clinical scenarios & human factors can effectively be taught through simulation and enhanced with an understanding of social GRACES.

An increased understanding of human factors and simulation training was useful in improving 3 crucial skills; teamwork, communication and leadership, which are instrumental in improving clinician confidence and patient outcomes.

Future direction should look to include awareness and implementation of human factors within mainstream simulation to effectively replicate real time clinical scenarios & pressures.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

The use of simulation in healthcare has increased in recent years. It is frequently used for replicating clinical scenarios and allows for the acquisition of skills in a safe environment. Whilst enabling candidates to make mistakes and learn from them without fear of harming patients is used across many specialities including paediatric emergency medicine for a range of teaching across all professional groups, Lateef [1] identifies that in order for it to reach its maximum potential, it needs to be integrated in traditional training programmes. This is becoming more commonplace. In order to know how to fully integrate it into practice, an understanding of how it is currently being used is essential. This scoping view aims to explore how simulation training is being used and what it is used for within paediatric emergency medicine (PEM), as reported by the literature.

Methods:

This review followed a five-step scoping review framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [2]. Literature searches were conducted in Medline and CINAHL with no limitation applied. Sixty-six studies were screened. Reference lists were also screened. Of the screened studies, 25 were subject to full test review and 19 were included in the final review. Articles were screened at all levels by one reviewer. Data extraction was also carried out by one reviewer.

Results:

No papers focused on the delivery of simulation within paediatric emergency medicine in the UK, with the majority of papers originating from the USA. There was also no paper that outlined the varied uses of simulation in PEM. Many of the papers described and evaluated single scenarios that were used in varying settings or simulation courses that were not specific to PEM. Both high and low fidelity simulations were reported with much of the focus on high-fidelity simulation. Delivered through either simulation suite-based learning or in situ simulation. There is little discussion about the use of simulation for interpersonal and communication skills with only one paper mentioning this. Frequently simulation focuses on the acquisition of individual procedures and skill acquisition. Alongside this simulation is also reported to be used to test responses to rare or complicated cases or high-pressured scenarios such as resuscitation.

Conclusion:

This scoping review reveals that the extent to which simulation is used within PEM is largely unknown and requires further investigation.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Simulation debriefing plays an important role in knowledge synthesis [1]. Although there is evidence to suggest that video-assisted debriefing improves outcomes, at least in nursing simulations, there is a wide variability in the practice and perceived effectiveness of video-assisted debriefing [2,3]. There is a paucity of literature about participants’ perspectives on the use of video review for simulation debriefing. The aim of this study is to explore participants’ perceptions and experience of the use of video review post-simulation.

Methods:

The study received ethical approval from the ethics committee at Anglia Ruskin University. We used qualitative research methodology to answer our research question. Foundation year trainees attending simulation as part of the curriculum were included in the study. This study involved focus group interviews with simulation participants prior to their simulation-based education. Post-simulation training, participants reviewed their simulation video clip in their own time and filled in a structured qualitative questionnaire about their video review experience.

Results:

This is an ongoing research and initial results are presented here. Data were collected from 13 participants over a period of 3 months from February 2023 to April 2023 in the simulation centre of a tertiary teaching hospital in the UK. The audio recording and the questionnaire were pseudonymized and analysed using inductive thematic content analysis. Important themes identified were the emotional aspects of watching their video, the learning opportunities available with video review, level of support needed for video review and ideal time to review the video. Unexpected emergent themes included foundation doctors’ views about simulation education, reflective practice post-simulation and peer pressure during simulation.

Conclusion:

This study explored foundation trainees’ perceptions (cognitive, kinetic and affective) about video review after simulation and several interesting themes were identified. We believe this study adds value to simulation-based medical education in helping to understand foundation doctors’ views about simulation and video-assisted debriefing.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Ligature and death by hanging represent critical issues in nursing practice that necessitate ongoing vigilance and assessment from healthcare practitioners [1–3]. This study delves into the lived experiences of healthcare professionals participating in a simulated ligature training and management workshop at a London university. The phenomenological research aims to offer an in-depth comprehension of the benefits and challenges associated with employing a simulation-based approach to ligature management training for mental health care professionals.

Methods:

A purposive sample of 10 healthcare professionals working in in-patient settings were invited to partake in a 2-day simulation-based ligature management workshop. Participants were aged 18 years or older and were able to provide written informed consent. Qualitative data were gathered following the 2-day simulation workshop through audio recordings and verbatim transcriptions, which were subsequently thematically analysed and interpreted by the research team.

Results:

Thematic analysis of in-depth interviews unveiled three principal themes: (1) transformative experience, (2) altered perspectives on ligature training, and (3) patient-centred risk management and empowerment. The study offers valuable insights into the lived experiences of healthcare professionals within a simulated learning environment, contributing to a more profound understanding of effective training strategies for handling ligature-related situations in clinical practice.

Conclusion:

The findings indicate that simulation-based training can bolster the competence, resilience and preparedness of mental health professionals in managing ligature-related situations. Moreover, involving patients in devising their own risk management plans and delivering individualized care can result in improved patient outcomes and diminished staff burnout. This study sheds light on effective training strategies for mental health professionals in tackling complex and challenging circumstances in mental health care.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.

Research suggests that eating disorders (ED) in children and adolescents are on the rise [1]. One study found that the incidence of anorexia nervosa in young girls aged 10–14 years increased by 50% between 1980 and 2000 [2]. Another study reported a 119% increase in the number of hospitalizations for eating disorders in children aged 12 and under between 1999 and 2006 [3]. These statistics highlight the urgent need for improved prevention, early intervention and treatment of eating disorders in young people. This 1-day interactive simulation training course is designed to enhance the knowledge, confidence and skills of medical doctors, psychiatrists, RMNs, physical health nurses, dieticians, general practitioners and family therapists who are working with children and young people (CYP) with eating disorders.

Methods:

This 1-day simulation course was delivered online. The course focuses on the assessment and management of CYP with ED, understanding the challenges faced by professionals in engaging CYP with ED in different settings, thinking about dynamics within family systems and in wider systems, and gaining a better understanding of capacity, consent and other conundrums. The course includes simulated scenarios played by trained actors to support the development of effective communication skills and Maudsley debrief model is employed to give participants feedback on their contributions and assist them in learning positively and constructively from their experience. Participants completed a pre- and post-course questionnaire measuring their confidence in course-specific skills and human factors skills, as well as collecting qualitative feedback on their experience of the course and intention to apply the learning.

Results:

Participants were asked to complete a pre-course and post-course questionnaire rating their knowledge, confidence and skills related to working with patients with eating disorders. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to analyse the difference in ratings between the pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results demonstrated a significant difference in the scores for course-specific questions between the pre-course (M =25.48, SD = 4.50) and post-course (M = 32.44, SD = 3.53), t(12) = 46 p < .001, 95% CI [−8.11, −5.80]. 100% of the participants reported that they would recommend the course.

Conclusion:

The course was effective at improving participants’ knowledge, confidence and skills in working with CYP with ED. The participants found the course useful for their clinical practice.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.