Skip to main content
Download PDF

Learning better together? A scoping review of in-person interprofessional undergraduate simulation

Advances in Simulation volume 10, Article number: 24 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Given the increasing complexity of contemporary clinical practice, there has never been a more important time to provide interprofessional educational (IPE) activities across the learning continuum to develop collaborative practice. From the outset of health professional training, it is crucial that students not only develop their own professional skills but also gain an awareness of the capabilities of other healthcare professionals and how best to work collaboratively. Despite simulation being a common teaching modality in many undergraduate curricula, little is known about the range of interprofessional activities within these settings. Therefore, this study aims to address the following research question: What is known about undergraduate in-person (IP) simulation-based education (SBE)?

Methods

We conducted a scoping literature review, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR extension guidelines, and used the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Our search covered three electronic databases: Web of Science (WOS), MEDLINE, and Embase. We utilised Covidence systematic review software to assist in screening articles. To support data charting, we developed a data extraction tool and employed both qualitative and quantitative techniques through numerical and thematic analysis to ensure a comprehensive representation of our data.

Results

A total of 97 studies were included, with most publications originating from the USA, UK, and Australia. Two main themes emerged regarding the impact of IP SBE at an individual level: confidence and role identification. Several themes related to the impact on teams included knowledge of other professional roles/values, communication, and teamwork. The studies identified various barriers and enablers to simulation, particularly logistical barriers and financial challenges associated with complex technologically enabled simulation. Faculty collaboration and resources were reported as primary enablers in facilitating the delivery of simulation activities.

Conclusions

The impact of IP-SBE on learners and interprofessional teams is predominantly positive, with reported benefits including increased confidence, enhanced role identification, and improved communication and teamwork skills. However, challenges such as logistical barriers and resource constraints highlight the need for collaborative faculty efforts and adequate infrastructure to support IP-SBE implementation. Despite the growing interest in IP-SBE, there remains a notable lack of standardised reporting on simulation design and debriefing processes in both teaching practice and research.

Background

Educators face increasing challenges in effectively preparing healthcare professionals (HCPs) and students for the realities of contemporary clinical practice. This preparation involves not only addressing the advancing clinical and technical complexities of modern healthcare but also navigating the social complexities of working within dynamic and evolving multidisciplinary teams. Beyond individual contributions, HCPs must collaborate effectively to provide the highest quality care for patients. In recognition of this need, HCP regulators and other organisations are increasingly mandating interprofessional education (IPE) in their curricula, beginning at an undergraduate level [1, 2]. With such drivers, there is an increasing need to provide and enhance IPE opportunities for students and healthcare professionals. However, enabling such interprofessional learning is not without its challenges and is considered by many to be a ‘wicked problem’ (a sociocultural issue that is difficult to solve due to its complex and interconnected nature) in health professions education (HPE) [3]. In order to attempt to ‘tame’ this wicked problem, IPE opportunities need to be expanded and most importantly at an undergraduate level, when HCP students begin to develop their professional identities and collaborative abilities.

Interprofessional education

Mirroring the collaborative nature of real clinical practice, learning should also have a collaborative focus. In its broadest sense, IPE has been defined as ‘occasions when members or students of two or more professions learn with, from, and about each other, to improve collaboration, and the quality of care and services’ [1]. Evidence would indicate that IPE can have a positive impact on the provision of healthcare by improving interactions between different professionals, enhancing patient safety, and streamlining treatment processes for patients [4]. When individuals from different professional backgrounds come together to work as a team, different learning attitudes, styles, and opinions can come together synergistically [5, 6]. Moreover, it is important to note the beneficial impact IPE has on patient outcomes [7]. When HCPs are familiar with IPE learning, it can lead to enhanced communication between members of the HCP team, having a positive impact on patient care [8]. IPE in health HPE can take many forms, including classroom-based learning, online environments, clinical workplace experiences, and simulation settings. Importantly, laying the foundation for collaborative practice should begin at the undergraduate level, as healthcare professionals start to embed their professional skills and identities.

Simulation-based education

Simulation is a form of experiential learning and is popular in HPE [9]. In this form of teaching, learners gain new insights and knowledge from facilitated experiences and guided conversations which aim to transform their competencies [10]. Often focusing at an individual level, there is increasing interest in how SBE can enhance team-based competencies across the learning continuum, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continual professional development. SBE can take many forms, including virtual-based modalities (such as AR/VR) and in-person simulation (e.g. manikin or simulated participant-based simulations). Given the resource-intensive nature of SBE, organisations need to make informed decisions about when to best utilise SBE and the different forms of SBE. This is of particular importance for in-person simulation, given the complexities of organising individuals to be present at specific times and ensuring they have a meaningful learning opportunity [11, 12]. Moreover, when we introduce more than one profession in an SBE activity — additional complexities are introduced that must be navigated. In an undergraduate setting, managing large cohorts of learners, there are often competing demands between different curricular structures and requirements, making it challenging to bring HCP students together in one place, at one time, for shared learning experiences.

Despite the growth of simulation in the undergraduate sector, and the recognised importance of nurturing collaborative practice at this stage of learning, the evidence base remains sparse on how interprofessional simulation-based education (IP-SBE) is implemented in undergraduate settings. Furthermore, while studies have explored in-person IP — in undergraduate contexts, a systematic overview is needed to understand the nature, extent, and impact of this form of learning [13]. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to address the following research question: What is known about undergraduate in-person interprofessional SBE? Specifically, we wanted to explore the format and nature of such undergraduate-based IP-SBE activities, the impact on learners, and any insights into the organisational enablers/barriers to delivering this complex form of learning.

Methods

Methodological approach

Considering the nature of our research aim, we chose to adopt a scoping literature review methodology. This approach allowed us to map the terrain of the evidence base regarding in-person IP-SBE in the undergraduate arena. Furthermore, it enabled us to identify important knowledge gaps that will guide future lines of research inquiry. We followed the PRISMA-ScR extension for our scoping review (Appendix 1) [14].

Research team and reflexivity

In keeping with the IPE context of this study and our constructivist stance in this study, we ensured diversity within our research team. B. J. is an undergraduate human biology student, D. C. is a general practitioner (GP) and clinical teaching fellow, A. S. is a lecturer in nursing specialising in simulation, D. A. is a specialist foundation programme doctor, and G. G. is a GP and simulation scholar. Throughout the study, the team met regularly, engaging in reflexive discussions and note-taking to maintain team reflexivity and alignment with the study’s aims.

Scoping literature review method

We followed the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework to guide our scoping review, namely: Stage 1: Defining the review question; Stages 2 and 3: Developing the search strategy and selection criteria; Stage 4: Charting the data; and Stage 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results. Due to time and resource constraints, we pragmatically decided not to undertake Stage 6 (the consultation exercise) of this framework [15].

Stage 1: Defining the research question

To define our research question, we applied the ‘Population, Situation’ tool [16]: namely the population was undergraduate HCP students, and the situation was in-person IP-SBE. Specifically, our objectives in this study were to establish the following [16]:

  1. 1)

    What is known about the features of in-person IP-SBE in the HCP undergraduate arena?

  2. 2)

    The impact, if any, of such in-person IP-SBE activities

  3. 3)

    Factors that enable, or inhibit, such a form of learning in undergraduate healthcare profession curricula?

Stages 2 and 3: Search strategy and selection criteria

Underpinned by our research objectives, we devised a search strategy with the assistance of a subject-specific librarian, as members of the research team collaborated to construct search terms that were refined through preliminary searches and further consultation with the librarian (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Search terms used for MEDLINE and Embase database searches
Full size table
Table 2 Search terms used for Web of Science database search
Full size table

In total, three electronic databases were selected for our search: Web of Science (WOS), MEDLINE, and Embase. These databases were chosen given their relevance to healthcare and healthcare education. The search was conducted in November 2023. The search terms used in each database can be seen in Tables 1 and 2.

Searches from the three online databases were imported into Covidence Systematic Review Software© (Melbourne, Australia, 2024) to assist in article screening. A total of 726 papers were initially imported: 259 from WOS, 239 from MEDLINE, and 228 from Embase. After identifying and removing 292 duplicates, 434 studies were screened based on title and abstract. This screening was carried out by two members of the team (B. J. and D. C.), and any conflicts that arose were settled by a third member of the team (G. G.) and finally agreed upon by consensus. In keeping with the iterative nature of scoping review methodology, a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria were devised and refined throughout the selection process. The following criteria were applied in our selection process:

Inclusion criteria

  1. 1.

    Educational activity that pertained to healthcare

  2. 2.

    Educational activity was simulation based.

  3. 3.

    Learners at an undergraduate level

  4. 4.

    Involved at least two healthcare professions

Exclusion criteria

  1. 1.

    To keep our findings relevant and contemporaneous, we excluded papers published before January 2014 (i.e. within the last 10 years).

  2. 2.

    Focusing on in-person simulation, we excluded virtual methods of simulation (e.g. online simulation, VR/AR simulation, gaming technology).

  3. 3.

    Papers that were conference abstracts, commentary pieces, review protocols, conference reports, short notes, e-posters, technical reports, oral abstracts, narrative pieces, or letters, given the likelihood of these not providing sufficient evidence to address our research objectives

After title and abstract screening was completed, 170 papers moved into a full-text review. Following the application of our exclusion criteria, 97 papers were deemed in scope to be assessed in our literature review.

Stage 4: Charting the data

The research team developed a data charting extraction tool using a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet (Supplement file 1). The tool’s categories were aligned with the research objectives, specifically study details and characteristics, the nature and characteristics of the IP-SBE activity, the impact of the in-person IP-SBE activity, and organisational factors (including enablers and inhibitors) in implementing the in-person IP-SBE activity. B. J., D. A., and G. G. conducted a calibration exercise and refinement of the extraction tool to ensure consistency in data extraction (i.e. regular meetings with open discussion and testing of the extraction tool until the group agreed consensus). Once consensus was reached, B. J. and D. A. extracted the data, with periodic checks and verification by the other researchers. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus among the entire research team.

Stage 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results

Given the variety of our data, we employed both qualitative and quantitative techniques to synthesise and present our findings. We conducted numerical analysis to examine the characteristics of the reviewed articles and in-person IP-SBE activities. For qualitative data analysis, we adopted a thematic approach to present our findings, drawing insights from categorised data. This method required collaborative and iterative efforts to ensure a comprehensive representation of our data.

Results

Selection of evidence sources

The PRIMSA flowchart (Fig. 1) illustrates the number of articles that were retrieved, screened, and extracted in our study. See supplementary file 1 for a list of articles in this scoping review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRIMSA flowchart of publications retried, screened, and extracted

Full size image

Characteristics of extracted evidence sources

Table 3 summarises the main characteristics of the publications included in our study in terms of their country of origin and study methodology.

Table 3 Main characteristics of evidence sources (n = 97)
Full size table

The majority of publications originated from a few countries, specifically the USA (39.2%, 38/97), the UK (16.5%, 16/97), and Australia (10.3%, 10/97) (refer to Fig. 2 for a pictograph of study locations.)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Pictograph of study locations in publications included in scoping review (Absolute number of countries not a % of total: USA 38; UK 16; Australia 10; South Africa 5; Germany, Canada, and Sweden 4;Switzerland, China, Turkey, India, and South Korea 2; the Netherlands, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Norway, and Oman 1)

Full size image

The majority of studies selected (71.1%, 69/97) were published since 2018. Mixed methods (27.8%, 27/97) were the most common methodology used, followed by systematic reviews (6.2%, 6/97) and scoping reviews (5.2%, 5/97).

Characteristics of IP-SBE activities described in evidence sources

A wide range of undergraduate in-person IP-SBE activities were described in the publications selected for our study. Table 4 summarises the main features of these IP-SBE activities.

Table 4 Main features of the IP-SBE activities mentioned in evidence sources (n = 97)
Full size table

The number of professions in the IP-SBE activity varied from 2 to 7 [17, 18]. The IP-SBE activities described in the studies were predominantly composed of medicine and nursing professionals (31%, 30/97). A wide range of other professional combinations were also described, primarily involving medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and social work. Notably, additional professions such as Clinical Laboratory Science and Nuclear Medicine Technology also participated in the IP-SBE activities cited in the evidence. A few studies included interprofessional interactions between undergraduate students and postgraduate professionals for the purpose of IP-SBE. For example, Peterson et al. included first-year medical residents in their IP-SBE activities [19].

Simulations using a full-body manikin (FBM) were the most common teaching modality used in the evidence sources selected in this scoping review (27.8%, 27/97). Studies that utilised simulated participants (SPs) closely followed (24.7%, 24/97). In other evidence sources, a mixture of simulation modalities was used in 16.5% (16/97) of studies, combining SPs and FBMs. The remaining 6.2% (6/97) were categorised as ‘other’, including studies where the mode of simulation was not specifically documented.

Most notably, learning objectives for the IP-SBE were poorly recorded in many of the studies (33%, 32/97), with a significant portion not stating any learning objectives at all. Among those that did document intended learning objectives, a majority (49.4%, 48/97) focused on communication skills or clinical skills. Specifically, 20.6% (20/97) cited interprofessional practice (IP) as a learning outcome.

Co-designed features of simulation

The majority of simulation activities described in the studies were co-designed between professions (55.7%, 54/97), while only 5.2% (5/97) of the studies were designed uni-professionally. Design features of simulation were not mentioned in 15.5% (15/97) of the papers.

An aspect of simulation that was highlighted for its importance in a number of papers was debriefing [20]; however, only 63% (61/97) of the studies detailed the nature of the debrief or commented on some aspect of briefing after the IP-SBE activity. Only 21% (20/97) of the studies explicitly mentioned that the debriefing session was co-facilitated. Video recordings from the simulation activity were utilised in a number of studies (22%, 21/97) to aid in the debriefing process. These recordings allowed all participants and facilitators to comment and enabled students to reflect on their own actions shown in the video [21, 22]. Studies with detailed information about the use of debriefing mentioned that the debriefers had received specific training beforehand [23]. One study highlighted the importance of both co-facilitated debriefing and individual profession-based debriefing. The co-facilitated debriefing allowed for discussions on interprofessional communication and team-based skills, while the individual profession-based debriefing facilitated discussions on specific clinical skills related to each profession [19]. A wide range of debriefing models were used [24, 25]

Impact of the IP-SBE activity

In terms of the impact of the IP-SBE activities on learners, two main themes were derived: namely confidence [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and role identification [19, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. One study particularly noted students’ weaknesses in a pretest, with role clarity identified as the main theme. Following the IP-SBE, a posttest indicated improvement in role clarity for two-thirds of the students [40]. Numerous themes came through about the impact the IP-SBE had on the interprofessional team aspect of the SBE activity — including knowledge of the other professions’ role and value in healthcare [18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31,32,33,34,35, 37, 38, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], and communication and teamwork [17, 36, 44, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. Interestingly, Uslu-Sahan reported that none of the students in the study had participated in any form of IP-SBE before, and only 66.7% had participated in SBE previously. The results showed that all participants exhibited increased perception and attitude of teamwork after completing the IP-SBE [71]. In another study, the authors reported negative impacts of poor communication skills among interprofessional teams during the IP-SBE activity [72]. The study noted that students lacked knowledge of formal communication tools, such as the use of SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) [72].

Barriers and enablers

Many of the challenges identified in the studies centred around logistical barriers. Coordinating timetables to enable students from different professions to participate in the same simulation activity, at the same location, and at the same time was frequently cited as a recurring issue. Another reported challenge was the nature of student participation in IP-SBE: some professions were required to complete the simulation activity as a mandatory component of their studies, while others had the option to participate voluntarily [40, 68]. Many studies reported the use of complex technologically enabled forms of simulation (e.g. complex FBM), together with some mentioning the financial challenges associated with it. Grants and specific funding sources were identified as enablers in some studies for providing IP-SBE activities. A pilot study using simulation was curtailed due to financial constraints associated with implementing the IP-SBE [44]. The majority of studies reported faculty collaboration and resources as the main enablers in facilitating the delivery of simulation activities. One study highlighted both these factors and voluntary participation as key to the successful implementation of IP-SBE activities [68].

Discussion

This scoping review maps the contours of the evidence base regarding in-person undergraduate simulation involving IP HCP students. The findings of this study provide an overview of an emerging educational tool for the future of healthcare by identifying study trends, characterising simulation activities, exploring co-designed features of simulation, and assessing the impact of simulation activities. Additionally, information surrounding the organisational features in delivering IP-SBE was mapped, allowing insights in how best to implement such educational opportunities.

Study trends

Like the nature of simulation research, it was no surprise that the majority of studies consisted of mixed-method approaches, allowing for comprehensive exploration of various aspects of IP-SBE. Data collection was predominantly quantitative, often using pre- and posttests including Likert scales. The top three countries emerging with studies related to IP-SBE were the USA, the UK, and Australia, indicating the established presence of IP-SBE in these regions. In contrast, a study published in Turkey, one of two studies included from this country in the scope, identified the lack of IP-SBE initiatives, highlighting the importance of future inclusion [71].

The ins and outs of the simulation activities

There was a vast array of combinations of professions within IP-SBE. The predominant combination was medicine and nursing. However, the combination of medicine and nursing does not accurately reflect current healthcare practice. The inclusion of more specialised healthcare professions such as Clinical Laboratory Science and Nuclear Medicine Technology demonstrates the versatility that IP-SBE can have. This suggests that with adaptations, simulation activities can be tailored to include any profession as required [19, 26]. Simulation scenarios involving emergency medical situations were commonly recorded, which either signifies one of two things: this area of healthcare urgently requires educational methods like IP-SBE, or the nature of simulation-based scenarios naturally lends itself to an emergency setting [25, 73]. Other scenarios included poverty, falls, cultural appreciation, palliative care, and ethical dilemmas, demonstrating the adaptability of IP-SBE to various contexts to meet learners’ needs. The main specialties frequently reported in simulation activities were emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynaecology, care of the elderly, palliative care, and surgery.

Given the significant number of studies that did not report intended learning objectives of their simulation activities, it is crucial to thoroughly explain these activities in research. While some researchers may prioritise other aspects of IP-SBE and consider reporting learning objectives unnecessary, this omission creates a notable gap in the literature when synthesising studies.

It is noteworthy that over half of the papers indicated that simulation activities were co-designed among multiple professions. When developing IP-SBE, it is crucial for all involved professions to participate in the simulation creation process to ensure that the needs of each profession are identified and met [25].

An aspect of IP-SBE that is gaining much focus is co-debriefing; however, as stated earlier, many studies failed to report the debriefing process or provide detailed information on its delivery. Some studies provided thorough explanations of how and by whom the debriefing was conducted, noting that facilitators often received formal training in debriefing techniques. No comparative studies were found that evaluated trained facilitators versus untrained ones for debriefing. Various methods of debriefing were identified, including those utilising video technology, peer-led debriefs, and formal debriefing protocols/tools such as ‘MAES standards’, ‘Delta Plus framework’, and ‘Steinwachs’ [45]. The majority of studies did not mention any specific model of debriefing. Among those studies that did not report debriefing, it remained unclear whether debriefing actually occurred or simply not documented in the paper. This raises the question of whether the importance of debriefing is underappreciated by some researchers in this field.

Another consistent issue observed regarding debriefing in simulations was the lack of documentation about who facilitated the debriefing. This raises concerns about the integrity of the IP-SBE experience. If the goal is to learn collaboratively across professions, why would the debriefing be facilitated by only one person? Without appropriate representation in the debriefing process, certain professions may miss out, affecting their learning experience [74].

Overall, the studies reviewed suggest that the literature lacks common standards and protocols for facilitating debriefing post IP-SBE. This gap highlights an area for future research.

Impact of undergraduate IP-SBE

We reviewed and identified the impact of simulation activities on students both as individuals and as part of an interprofessional (IP) team. The results were predominantly positive. Across the literature, self-efficacy was frequently recognised, with students increasing their self-awareness of abilities and limitations in their own knowledge. This was primarily assessed through pre- and posttests administered before and after the simulation, respectively. Additionally, students self-reported several themes in free-text responses following the simulation activities, including increased confidence and clearer role identification.

When examining the impact of simulation activities on students as part of an IP team, we identified major themes related to knowledge of other professions’ roles and values, as well as communication and teamwork. Increased understanding of the roles and values of peers within the team fostered collaboration and enhanced team efficacy, both of which contribute to improved patient care. Furthermore, improved IP collaboration led to enhanced communication skills among students in a supportive learning environment [62].

While the majority of recorded impacts were positive, it is important to note some negative experiences and potential drawbacks. One negative impact reported was that junior midwives expressed discomfort participating in role-play activities. This reluctance was more prevalent among junior midwives compared to their senior counterparts, suggesting that experienced students may be more willing to engage in simulation activities. However, the discomfort felt by junior midwives could potentially deter them from participating in IP-SBE if they are forced to engage in activities that make them feel uncomfortable [75]. Careful consideration in the design of the simulation activity is vital to ensure students feel comfortable and therefore achieve the best possible from the learning experience [76]. While the literature frequently discusses the impact of role identification, a design issue in crafting simulation activities was noted. Some scenarios involved assigning students to pre-engineered roles to ensure structured teamwork and facilitate smoother simulations. However, this approach does not mirror real-life situations where team dynamics often evolve naturally, with leaders emerging organically.

If the goal of IP-SBE is to replicate real-life scenarios, could assigning roles hinder students from assuming their natural positions within an IP team? [36].

The organisational features that allow IP-SBE to happen

Recurring themes contributing to the success of IP-SBE included interprofessional faculty collaboration, the availability of simulation resources, and the creation of psychologically safe learning environments. Many logistical barriers must be addressed first, such as arranging for students to be released from placements or classes to participate in activities. Due to the nature of IP-SBE, participation often occurs in small groups with limited resources, which can complicate the facilitation of IP-SBE for all students.

Collaboration between different faculties to plan and design simulation activities, involving students from each profession, allowed this to happen. This collaboration also ensured that all participants had an active role in the simulation, meeting specific learning objectives within their professional domains. Students repeatedly commented on the IP-SBE using high-fidelity simulations as very realistic and improving their learning experience compared to simulations using lower-technical resources [65]. The mode of participation was frequently highlighted; students engaging in the same simulation activity may have varying attitudes towards the session, with some attending voluntarily and others being mandated to participate. Many simulation activities, such as high-fidelity simulations, can be resource-intensive and require expensive equipment. This limits access for students in developed or economically disadvantaged areas.

Limitations

Despite the novelty and methodologically rigorous approach of this literature review, the findings must be considered within the study’s limitations. Given the nature of scoping reviews, it is challenging to ensure the inclusion of all relevant literature on the topic. Although we were guided by a subject-specific librarian and conducted methodical searches across three databases, which yielded a substantial number of papers for a comprehensive review, it is possible that some relevant studies were not included.

We intentionally excluded papers focused on postgraduate or qualified individuals to focus on IP-SBE at the undergraduate level, aiming to understand how it educates the next generation of HCPs. Research on how IP-SBE develops qualified HCP would be worthy of future research. Additionally, we limited our review to papers published within the last 10 years to maintain current evidence, though this approach might have excluded relevant earlier publications.

Challenges were encountered in identifying the characteristics of IP in such forms of SBE. Moving forward, further research is essential to establish criteria for documenting features of IP-SBE activities, including learning objectives and outcomes, design characteristics, nature of facilitation, pre-briefing, and debriefing processes, to enable clear reporting of successful practices. While medicine and nursing were prominently featured, it is crucial to expand IP-SBE activities across other professions to ensure that students are prepared for the evolving healthcare landscape.

Finally, Stage 6, the ‘consultation exercise’, of the scoping review methodology by Arksey and O’Malley was not conducted due to time and resource constraints. Additionally, exploratory research involving simulation-based educators would be valuable for further exploring IP-SBE in an undergraduate setting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this scoping review highlights the growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning among undergraduate HCPs and the necessity of preparing them for multidisciplinary teamwork in clinical practice. Through a detailed examination of the literature, this review identifies key trends, characteristics of undergraduate IP-SBE activities, and their impacts on learners and interprofessional teams. Co-designed simulations and interprofessional debriefing sessions emerge as critical elements for fostering effective learning experiences.

The impact of IP-SBE on learners and interprofessional teams is predominantly positive, with reported benefits including increased confidence, enhanced role identification, and improved communication and teamwork skills. However, challenges such as logistical barriers and resource constraints underscore the need for collaborative faculty efforts and adequate infrastructure to support IP-SBE implementation. Despite the growing interest in IP-SBE, there remains a notable lack of standardised reporting on simulation design and debriefing processes.

This review’s findings have significant implications for healthcare education practice, emphasising the need for standardised reporting guidelines and standards of simulation practice across healthcare facilities to ensure consistency and quality in IP-SBE implementation. Lastly, identified gaps in the literature suggest several avenues for future research, including exploring the impact of IP-SBE on postgraduate healthcare professionals and addressing challenges related to resource allocation and logistical coordination.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Barr H. What is interprofessional education? The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. 2023. https://www.caipe.org/about. Accessed 11 Oct 2023.

  2. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials of a master’s education in nursing. Eessentials Master’s Educ Nurs. 2011;1:22–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Samarasekera DD, Nyoni CN, Amaral E, et al. Challenges and opportunities in interprofessional education and practice. TheLancet. 2022;400:1495–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thistlethwaite JE. Values-based interprofessional collaborative practice: Working together in health care. Cambridge United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2012. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/CBO9781139108904

  5. World Health Organization. Learning together to work together for health. 2013. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/369897. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.

  6. O’Leary N, Salmon N, Clifford AM. ‘It benefits patient care’: the value of practice-based IPE in healthcare curriculums. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Illingworth P, Chelvanayagam S. Benefits of inter professional education in health care - ten years on. Br J Nurs. 2017;26:813–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choudhury RI, Salam MAU, Mathur J, et al. How interprofessional education could benefit the future of healthcare - medical students’ perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Neil-Pirozzi TM, Musler JL, Carney M, et al. Impact of early implementation of experiential education on the development of interprofessional education knowledge and skill competencies. J Allied Health. 2019;48:e53–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gormley GJ, Murphy P. When I say … simulation. Med Educ. 2023;57:1182–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardie P, O’Donovan R, Jarvis S, et al. Key tips to providing a psychologically safe learning environment in the clinical setting. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:816.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Elq AH. Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. J Family Community Med. 2010;17:35–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:126–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist section. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Health Evidence. Developing an efficient search strategy using PICO. 2024, https://www.healthevidence.org/practice-tools.aspx#PT2 (accessed 29 March 2024).

  17. Turrentine FE, Rose KM, Hanks JB, et al. Interprofessional training enhances collaboration between nursing and medical students: a pilot study. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;40:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Wyk R, Labuschagne MJ, Joubert G. Simulation as an educational strategy to deliver interprofessional education. Afr J Health Prof Educ. 2020;12:74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peterson DT, Brown M, Wingo N, et al. Exploring hidden curricula in an interprofessional intensive care unit simulation. Clin Simul Nurs. 2018;22:22–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Paige JT, Garbee DD, Yu Q, et al. Brick in the wall? Linking quality of debriefing to participant learning in team training of interprofessional students. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2021;7:360–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. MacLeod CE, Brady DR, Maynard SP. Measuring the effect of simulation experience on perceived self-efficacy for interprofessional collaboration among undergraduate nursing and social work students. J Interprof Care. 2022;36:102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pedersen TH, Berger-Estilita J, Signer S, et al. Attitudes towards interprofessionalism among midwife students after hybrid-simulation: a prospective cohort study. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;100: e104872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Data S, Dubé MM, Bajunirwe F, et al. Feasibility of an interprofessional, simulation-based curriculum to improve teamwork skills, clinical skills, and knowledge of undergraduate medical and nursing students in Uganda: a cohort study. Simulation in Healthcare. 2021;16:e100–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nyström S, Dahlberg J, Edelbring S, et al. Debriefing practices in interprofessional simulation with students: a sociomaterial perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Oxelmark L, Nordahl Amorøe T, Carlzon L, et al. Students’ understanding of teamwork and professional roles after interprofessional simulation—a qualitative analysis. Adv Simul. 2017;2:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stewart M, McQuillen EP, Carter EV. Promoting system thinking and professionalism through simulated hospital experiences for nursing and clinical laboratory science students. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2023;44:110–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang A, Fernando S, Tighe J, et al. Introduction of an interprofessional gynaecology surgical skills workshop for undergraduate medical and nursing students. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60:238–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Turkelson C, Keiser M, Yorke AM, et al. Piloting a multifaceted interprofessional education program to improve physical therapy and nursing students’ communication and teamwork skills. J Acute Care Phys Ther. 2018;9:107–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang A, Fernando S, Tighe J, et al. Impact of an interprofessional surgical skills workshop on undergraduate medical and nursing student interest in a career in surgery: a thematic analysis. J Surg Educ. 2021;78:905–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sizemore JN, Kurowski-Burt A, Evans K, et al. Interdisciplinary education apartment simulation (IDEAS) project: an interdisciplinary simulation for transitional home care. MedEdPORTAL. 2021;17: e11111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hardisty J, Guilding C, Statham L, et al. Are students accepting of an all-day conference delivered model of interprofessional learning (IPL) on antimicrobial stewardship and patient safety? Int J Pharm Pract. 2017;25. https://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/8191/. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.

  32. Huth K, Growdon AS, Stockman LS, et al. Establishing trust within interprofessional teams with a novel simulation activity in the pediatric clerkship. J Interprof Care. 2020;8:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peterson KS, Mishark KJ, Knuttinen G, et al. Honors students in the health professions: an academic-practice partnership for developing interprofessional competencies through simulation. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37:985–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Paige JT, Garbee DD, Yu Q, et al. Team training of inter-professional students (TTIPS) for improving teamwork. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2017;3:127–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee W, Kim M, Kang Y, et al. Nursing and medical students’ perceptions of an interprofessional simulation-based education: a qualitative descriptive study. Korean J Med Educ. 2020;32:317–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Jakobsen RB, Gran SF, Grimsmo B, et al. Examining participant perceptions of an interprofessional simulation-based trauma team training for medical and nursing students. J Interprof Care. 2018;32:80–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Greig PR, Darbyshire JL, Richards E. ‘The most useful exercise of medical school’: simulated death can be successfully incorporated into undergraduate simulation. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2018;4:99–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Gordon R, Flecknell M, Fournier T, et al. Partnering for Patti: shaping future healthcare teams through simulation-enhanced interprofessional education. Canadian J Respir Ther. 2017;53:81–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Burnett AJ, Akerson E. Preparing future health professionals via reflective pedagogy: a qualitative instrumental case study. Reflective Pract. 2019;20:571–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murphy JI, Nimmagadda J. Partnering to provide simulated learning to address Interprofessional Education Collaborative core competencies. J Interprof Care. 2015;29:285–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sigalet EL, Donnon TL, Grant V. Insight into team competence in medical, nursing and respiratory therapy students. J Interprof Care. 2015;29:62–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Paige J, Garbee D, Yu Q, et al. Moving along: team training for emergency room trauma transfers (T2ERT2). J Surg Educ. 2019;76:1402–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Popkess A, Poirier TI, Wilhelm M, et al. Interprofessional error disclosure simulation for health professional students. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13:573–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Musenge EM, Nzala SH, Makukula MK, et al. Application of interprofessional education model to university pre-licensure health students in the management of chronic care conditions in Zambia. Med J Zambia. 2022;49:185–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Paige JT, Kerdolff KE, Rogers CL, et al. Improvement in student-led debriefing analysis after simulation-based team training using a revised teamwork assessment tool. Surgery (United States). 2021;170:1659–64.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hur HK, Kim KK, Lim YM, et al. Patient safety interprofessional education program using medical error scenarios for undergraduate nursing and medical students in Korea. J Interprof Care. 2023;37:944–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lim CX, Livesay K, Stevens J, et al. Dosage form modification, a simulation activity between nursing and pharmacy students. Pharmacy. 2022;10: 141.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Leithead J, Garbee DD, Yu Q, et al. Examining interprofessional learning perceptions among students in a simulation-based operating room team training experience. J Interprof Care. 2019;33:26–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hardisty J, O’Neil H, O’Connell J, et al. Simulating complexity: providing undergraduate students with exposure in early clinical training to the multidisciplinary management of frail older people. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanced Learn. 2019;5:116–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Flössel U, Clas S, Willemer M, et al. Using simulation mannequins and actors in training for external post-mortem examinations -experiences from use in medical students and police officers. J Forensic Leg Med. 2021;77: e102102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cropp C, Beall J, Buckner E, et al. Interprofessional pharmacokinetics simulation: pharmacy and nursing students’ perceptions. Pharmacy. 2018;6:70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Cooke C, Gormley GJ, Haughey S, et al. Tracing the prescription journey: a qualitative evaluation of an interprofessional simulation-based learning activity. Adv Simul. 2017;2: e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Carpenter AM, Hirthler MA, King CJ. Interprofessional collaborative practice: use of simulated clinical experiences in medical education. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2018;118:235–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Brown CW, Howard M, Morse J. The use of trauma interprofessional simulated education (TIPSE) to enhance role awareness in the emergency department setting. J Interprof Care. 2016;30:388–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Brashers V, Erickson JM, Blackhall L, et al. Measuring the impact of clinically relevant interprofessional education on undergraduate medical and nursing student competencies: a longitudinal mixed methods approach. J Interprof Care. 2016;30:448–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Waller S, Nestel D. Interprofessional simulation in a student community clinic: insights from an educational framework and contact theory. Adv Simul. 2019;4: e21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Visker JD, Welker K, Rhodes D, et al. Effect of a rapid e-learning module and brief interprofessional simulation event on medical and nursing student collaborative attitudes and behaviors. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2020;17: e20190122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smith L, Sachs B, Berg K, et al. Qualitative analysis of student physical therapist reflective writing: does an interprofessional discharge planning simulation increase their understanding of the role they play in discharge planning? Int J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2020;e226475765.

  59. Wang R, Shi N, Bai J, et al. Implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional simulation-based education program for undergraduate nursing students in operating room nursing education: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Southall TM, MacDonald S. Fostering undergraduate medicine, nursing, and pharmacy students’ readiness for interprofessional learning using high fidelity simulation. Cureus. 2021;13: e12571.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Davis J, Zulkosky K, Ruth-Sahd LA, et al. Health care professional students’ perceptions of teamwork and roles after an interprofessional critical care simulation. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2021;40:174–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Reising DL, Carr DE, Tieman S, et al. Psychometric testing of a simulation rubric for measuring interprofessional communication. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36:311–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ogunyemi D, Haltigin C, Vallie S, et al. Evolution of an obstetrics and gynecology interprofessional simulation-based education session for medical and nursing students. Medicine (United States). 2020;37: e22562.

    Google Scholar 

  64. O’Carroll V, Kousha O, Fiston Kitema G, et al. Interprofessional Arclight™ eye health workshop: impact on students’ clinical identification and ophthalmic skills. J Interprof Care. 2023;37:841–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kleib M, Jackman D, Duarte-Wisnesky U. Interprofessional simulation to promote teamwork and communication between nursing and respiratory therapy students: a mixed-method research study. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;99: e104816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Delbridge R, Garvey L, Mackelprang JL, et al. Working at a cultural interface: co-creating Aboriginal health curriculum for health professions. High Educ Res Dev. 2022;41:1483–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Aljahany M, Malaekah H, Alzahrani H, et al. Simulation-based peer-assisted learning: perceptions of health science students. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021;12:731–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Tauscher A, Stepan H, Todorow H, et al. Interteam PERINAT – interprofessional team collaboration in undergraduate midwifery and medical education in the context of obstetric emergencies: presentation of simulation scenarios and empirical evaluation results. GMS J Med Educ. 2023;40:Doc 20.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Reising DL, Carr DE, Gindling S, et al. Team communication influence on procedure performance: findings from interprofessional simulations with nursing and medical students. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2017;38:275–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Breckwoldt J, Knecht M, Massée R, et al. Operating room technician trainees teach medical students - an inter-professional peer teaching approach for infection prevention strategies in the operation room. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Uslu-Sahan F, Terzioglu F. Interprofessional simulation-based training in gynecologic oncology palliative care for students in the healthcare profession: a comparative randomized controlled trial. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;95: e104588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Anderson E, Bennett S. Taking a closer look at undergraduate acute care interprofessional simulations: lessons learnt. J Interprof Care. 2020;34:772–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mancera M, Genthe N, Gussick M, et al. Acceptability and preferences of simulation-based continuing education among emergency medical service providers. Wis Med J. 2022;121:127–31.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kumar P, Paton C, Simpson HM, et al. Is interprofessional co-debriefing necessary for effective interprofessional learning within simulation-based education? Int J Healthcare Simul. 1. Epub ahead of print 2021. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.54531/inrx6536.

  75. Feltham C, Foster J, Davidson T, et al. Student midwives and paramedic students’ experiences of shared learning in pre-hospital childbirth. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;41:73–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lackie K, Hayward K, Ayn C, et al. Creating psychological safety in interprofessional simulation for health professional learners: a scoping review of the barriers and enablers. J Interprof Care. 2023;37:187–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions by our subject librarian Richard Fallis and Dr. Nick Gardner for his advice regarding the use of Covidence software.

Funding

N/A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Biomedical Sciences Education, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

    Brona Joyce

  2. Centre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

    Davina Carr, Dakota Armour & Gerard J. Gormley

  3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

    Alison Smart

Authors
  1. Brona Joyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davina Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alison Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dakota Armour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerard J. Gormley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and literature review process of this study. BJ and GG lead the manuscript writing. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard J. Gormley.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not required for this literature review study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests. Gerard Gormley is an Associate Editor for Advances in Simulation.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Supplement file 1: List of articles in the scoping review.

41077_2025_351_MOESM2_ESM.docx

Additional file 2. Appendix 1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joyce, B., Carr, D., Smart, A. et al. Learning better together? A scoping review of in-person interprofessional undergraduate simulation. Adv Simul 10, 24 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41077-025-00351-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41077-025-00351-5

Keywords

Advances in Simulation

ISSN: 2059-0628

Contact us