Designing a context-sensitive faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators: lessons from a practice-based implementation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education is widely recognised as a key strategy in health professions training, yet the quality and sustainability of simulation initiatives depend heavily on the preparation of faculty responsible for facilitation, scenario design, and debriefing. While international standards provide guidance for simulation practice, implementing faculty development programs can be challenging in institutions characterised by limited resources, high teaching workloads, and heterogeneous faculty experience. Detailed accounts of how such programs are designed, implemented, and sustained within real institutional constraints remain limited. MAIN BODY: This paper describes the design, implementation, and reflective analysis of a hybrid faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators developed within a Brazilian higher education institution. The program was informed by experiential learning theory, adult learning principles, and implementation science perspectives, and was developed following an institutional needs assessment. The architecture combined asynchronous preparatory learning, synchronous online discussions, and experiential in-person workshops focused on scenario design and debriefing practice. A six-month responsive longitudinal support component was incorporated to facilitate transfer of learning into authentic teaching contexts. Communication and reinforcement mechanisms were integrated into institutional digital platforms already used by faculty in order to minimise participation barriers. Implementation indicators demonstrated feasibility and high participant acceptability within the institutional context. Implementation revealed both strengths and tensions. The structured experiential phase proved operationally stable and aligned with faculty learning needs. However, utilisation of the optional mentorship component remained limited, highlighting the challenges of sustaining engagement in contexts characterised by competing professional demands. Descriptive readiness profiles suggested developmental progression among participants, although the architecture was not designed as a formal competency assessment framework. Reflective analysis of the implementation process allowed the identification of design principles related to feasibility, contextual adaptation, reinforcement strategies, and institutional integration. CONCLUSION: This practice-based account illustrates how simulation faculty development initiatives can balance pedagogical rigour with contextual feasibility. Rather than proposing a new competency framework, the architecture offers an implementation-oriented approach for supporting faculty development in resource-constrained educational environments. The experience suggests that foundational experiential training, flexible reinforcement strategies, and integration within existing institutional ecosystems may offer transferable insights for institutions seeking to expand simulation capacity under similar structural constraints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC), number RBR-4dqtygd.
Related
- Co-designing a framework of the influences for the implementation of whole school approaches to Physical Education, School Sport and Physical Activity (PESSPA) in UK primary schools: development of the PESSPA Improvement Framework (PIF)
- Operationalising the Operational Guidance on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies: A Narrative Review of Implementation Strategies, Barriers, Facilitators, and Health System Integration in Humanitarian Settings
- Pre-implementation barriers and facilitators to implementing a physical activity guideline for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a qualitative stakeholder study
- A preliminary qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators prior to implementation of a pressure injury prevention program in home care: perspectives of care managers in Japan.
- Facilitators, Barriers and Reported Implementation Outcomes of Wide‐Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet in Hand Surgery Practice: A Systematic Scoping Review
BibTeX
@article{campos2026designing,
title = {{Designing a context-sensitive faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators: lessons from a practice-based implementation}},
author = {Daniel Gonçalves Campos and Juliany Lino Gomes Silva and Fernanda Magalhães Arantes-Costa and Ana Railka de Souza Oliveira-Kumakura},
journal = {Advances in Simulation},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s41077-026-00465-4},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05831208v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Designing a context-sensitive faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators: lessons from a practice-based implementation
AU - Daniel Gonçalves Campos
AU - Juliany Lino Gomes Silva
AU - Fernanda Magalhães Arantes-Costa
AU - Ana Railka de Souza Oliveira-Kumakura
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/15
JO - Advances in Simulation
DO - 10.1186/s41077-026-00465-4
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05831208v1
AB - BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education is widely recognised as a key strategy in health professions training, yet the quality and sustainability of simulation initiatives depend heavily on the preparation of faculty responsible for facilitation, scenario design, and debriefing. While international standards provide guidance for simulation practice, implementing faculty development programs can be challenging in institutions characterised by limited resources, high teaching workloads, and heterogeneous faculty experience. Detailed accounts of how such programs are designed, implemented, and sustained within real institutional constraints remain limited. MAIN BODY: This paper describes the design, implementation, and reflective analysis of a hybrid faculty development architecture for simulation facilitators developed within a Brazilian higher education institution. The program was informed by experiential learning theory, adult learning principles, and implementation science perspectives, and was developed following an institutional needs assessment. The architecture combined asynchronous preparatory learning, synchronous online discussions, and experiential in-person workshops focused on scenario design and debriefing practice. A six-month responsive longitudinal support component was incorporated to facilitate transfer of learning into authentic teaching contexts. Communication and reinforcement mechanisms were integrated into institutional digital platforms already used by faculty in order to minimise participation barriers. Implementation indicators demonstrated feasibility and high participant acceptability within the institutional context. Implementation revealed both strengths and tensions. The structured experiential phase proved operationally stable and aligned with faculty learning needs. However, utilisation of the optional mentorship component remained limited, highlighting the challenges of sustaining engagement in contexts characterised by competing professional demands. Descriptive readiness profiles suggested developmental progression among participants, although the architecture was not designed as a formal competency assessment framework. Reflective analysis of the implementation process allowed the identification of design principles related to feasibility, contextual adaptation, reinforcement strategies, and institutional integration. CONCLUSION: This practice-based account illustrates how simulation faculty development initiatives can balance pedagogical rigour with contextual feasibility. Rather than proposing a new competency framework, the architecture offers an implementation-oriented approach for supporting faculty development in resource-constrained educational environments. The experience suggests that foundational experiential training, flexible reinforcement strategies, and integration within existing institutional ecosystems may offer transferable insights for institutions seeking to expand simulation capacity under similar structural constraints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC), number RBR-4dqtygd.
SN - 2059-0628
ER -