JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Background and Research Objectives: Technology-assisted simulations have become pivotal for oncology nursing education; however, little is known about differences and similarities in generation-based interpretation of the same simulation environment by nurses. The research aimed to understand generation-related meanings of the simulation environment and provide guidance on designing simulations that would be inclusive, psychologically safe, and responsive to learners.

Objective:

explores oncology nurses' experience of SBL in various generational cohorts in a tertiary cancer center. Instead of treating generation as a predictive variable

Methods:

Methods:

A phenomenological qualitative research was conducted at a tertiary cancer center. Analysis of the interview records of 24 oncology nurses was carried out using thematic analysis (NVivo) by two independent experts. Generation X, Generation Y/Millennials, and Generation Z were represented by the participants. The interview guide was prepared with the help of literature review, expert opinion, staff checking, and piloting. The analysis consisted of two layers, namely common themes among all participants and generation-related meanings. Trustworthiness of the findings was provided by using independent coding, triangulation of the investigator, consensus discussion, reflective memos, audit trail, and quotes.

Results:

Six common themes characterized the generation-based experience of oncology simulation: simulation as realistic rehearsal of clinical practice; psychological safety, stress, and being observed; learning from mistakes without harming patients; technology, fidelity, and generational adaptation; intergenerational learning and hierarchy; and preparation, repetition, and simulation design. The nurses of Generation X viewed the process of simulation primarily as an activity of professional revalidation and refresher learning, and as a respectable environment for sharing their clinical expertise. For nurses of Generation Y/Millennials, it was about implementation of policies into clinical practice, vigilant attitude to their job, and connection between clinical expertise and the new knowledge gained by nurses of Generation Z. The latter viewed simulation as a safe first experience before working with actual patients, but also talked about their anxiety associated with the new environment, observation, and clinical procedures. Generational differences did not appear just because of the difference in age and preference towards one or another teaching method.

Conclusions:

In technology-enhanced oncology simulations, different generations can be present in the same room but they will have different views on realism, stress, technology, feedback, and patient safety. The simulation programs need to include realistic scenarios, prebriefing, technology orientation, psychologically safe debriefing, multiple exposures, and intergenerational facilitation respecting clinical expertise.