Masalin, Raukola, Suppula, Mattila

1. TOWARDS LOWER
THRESHOLD SIMULATION
TEEMU MASALIN, MAARIT RAUKOLA, TARU SUPPULA
FACULTY OF MEDICINE, CLINICUM, UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI,
HELSINKI, FINLAND
MINNA-MARIA MATTILA, FACULTY OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF
HELSINKI, CLINICUM HELSINKI & MINSIM, FINLAND

2. CHALLENGE: MORE SIMULATION, WITHOUT
MORE RESOURCES!
• Simulation in increasingly important part of medical education
• Students would like to have simulation teaching
• Simulation systems are often complex and require resources
• How to lower the threshold?

3. COMPARING THREE SIMULATOR SYSTEMS:
FULL-SCALE PATIENT SIMULATOR
• Versatile, ”real” patient, ”real” environment
• Suitable for all teaching purposes including OSCE
• Programmable scenarios, measured feedback
• Complexity: computers, mannequin, AV-system
• Expensive, requires support, planning and
resources

5. COMPARING THREE SIMULATOR SYSTEMS:
MOBILE PATIENT SIMULATOR
• Carry with you solution
• Suitable for many purposes and places
• Programmable scenarios, simulated patient or mannequin
• Easier setup: no computers, just two iPads
• Less expensive, requires less planning and resources
• Combine with etc. CPR mannequin for measured feedback

7. COMPARING THREE SIMULATOR SYSTEMS:
PATIENT MONITOR APP
• Light, simple and cheap
• Almost instant setup, minimal support
• Requires manual input, no programmable scenarios
• Simulated patient or mannequin
• Easier setup: no computers, just two iPads
• Less expensive, requires less planning and resources
• Combine with etc. CPR mannequin for measured feedback

9. EXPERIENCES FROM THREE DIFFERENT
SYSTEMS
• Lighter systems are surprisingly versatile
• Simulation teaching is more accessible
• More teachers and peer-tutors
• Lower learning curve, less technology,
• More inspiration
• Find the best alternative, mix patient simulators and simulated
patients