Pros And Cons Of Human Patient Simulation

How has advancing technology impacted students’ critical thinking and clinical reasoning abilities? In order to find an answer or at least some background knowledge to help answer this question, I reviewed two journal articles. Montenery (2013) aimed to determine how millennial nursing students perceived the effects of technology on attention, knowledge, critical thinking, and overall satisfaction. Vyas (2011) discusses providing more hands on clinical practice through the use of human patient simulation. Though some believe technology is producing a decline in critical thinking and analysis, technology can positively impact critical thinking abilities because students positively rate virtual learning and simulation experiences, prefer computerized testing, and are exposed to complex patient cases through simulation that require clinical judgment.

Using a Human Patient Simulation (HPS) in an interactive simulation is an important tool for assessing student, skills, knowledge and allows for student reflection. (Mompoint-Williams, Brooks, Lee, Watts, & Moss, 2014) .High-fidelity teaching simulations highlight the position that is dominant of students in learning. (Fen-Fen, & Li-Rong, 2016) .These simulations are very popular among the students, thus, These simulations are valuable for mastering of knowledge and skills by students as well as nurturing student self-efficacy. (Fen-Fen, etal., 2016).There is a need for nursing educators to implement HFS in nursing method, where its integration can bridge the gap between nursing practice and theoretical knowledge and enhance critical thinking

A third reason is because Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals In vitro testing, such as studying cells in a petri dish, can produce more results than animal testing because human cells can be used. Artificial human skin, such as Epiderm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Microfluidic chips which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on

Granted, despite the extremely low success rate of passing drugs, the few that do end up succeeding save and improve human lives all around. However, this practice is hurting animals at our expense, and we don’t even have to experiment on these animals to get the results being strived for. There are many alternatives to animal testing, some even more productive and accurate than the current, inhumane tests. Artificial skin is one of these. Artificial skin is large sheets of lab made skin cells. This would be very useful for cosmetic testing because if the substance being tested was toxic, animals would not get rashes or being injured. Also, this would be a limitless source of testing material, and provide more accurate results because the skin is much more similar to a human's than an animal's. Another possible solution is in vitro testing. This is when scientists extract human cells and do tests on them in petri dishes. Once again, this too is more effective than animal testing because there are real human cells instead of animal cells. But, the cells are not entirely effective because they are not in the body and are not responding they way they would in their natural environment. An even better solution is body chips. These miracle workers are chips with organ cells in them. It acts as the cells “environment” and makes it respond normally to drugs and disease. The

The use of simulation allows students to experience hypothetical clinical scenarios without threat of harm to patients. One of the objectives of running the simulation is to allow to experience and learn from various scenarios that they will likely encounter on the nursing floor and provide an opportunity to apply theory into practice. Prior to this simulation, we were introduced to several literature covering concepts on nursing responsibilities when floating, impaired nursing, diversion of medication, reasonable suspicion, and the AACN standards for establishing and sustaining healthy work environments. Such concepts help the nurse to practice her profession safely and transform into a leader that can initiate and influence change towards the success of an organization.

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15][50][51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. [50]

Erwin, you make great points about simulation concerning patient safety and quicker learning time. Having the opportunity to simulate real-life situations in a controlled environment provides valuable experience to the clinician. The ability to practice a skill improves the performance of that skill. A recent randomized, cross-over study evaluated 21 novice anesthesia residents receiving simulation training in both the recognition and treatment of hypotension and hypoxemia. Residents receiving SBT (simulation based training) in the management of these critical events demonstrated accelerated and superior performance to those receiving traditional (nonsimulation) training.1 A 2012 study evaluated the effect of simulation training on resident

Many experiments done in today’s society are questionable according to the standards set today by ourselves, and others. A large example, without a doubt, is the experimentation of chemicals and other drugs on animals.

I hold my breath in anticipation: the moment had finally arrived. What lay behind this door would be formidable, to say the least. However, knowing this only increased my excitement of what was to come. I glanced at my teammates, and a familiar combination of eagerness and anxiety met my eye. Ever-so-cautiously, we open the door and see our patient, awaiting our arrival – the test had begun.

Human tissue such as the surface of the skin has been proven to be a more reliable and accurate than tests on animals. The Lethal Dose 50 is the standard amount of toxicity which materials given to subjects in an experiment have, it is usually up to 50% fatal resulting in one half of all animals to die as a result. "The late Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall (Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden) developed a replacement for the LD50 test that measured toxicity at a precision rate of up to 85% accuracy compared to the LD50 rate of 61-65%" (Neaves). This experiment built and executed by the extraordinary cell toxicologist Dr. Bjon Ekwall consisted of a replica of the LD50 test which measured the toxicity rate of subjects much more accurately than the original. This experiment was performed on donated human tissue, not living animals. Not only is human skin and tissue capable of predicting more precise results, using human tissue would effectively determine whether a drug is safe for human organs or other important functions of the human body. Tests on living animals may never reveal those types of effects because by the time the effects can start to show, the animals are murdered by the other chemicals injected into their bodies or of physical decay. Although the obvious alternative to animal testing is testing humans, another possible alternative is the

I went onto to the PETA website looking for articles on this topic and i found something that sparked my interest it said that we no longer needed to test on animals because we had alterenativses. Scienctist have developed a new way to test the effects of drugs on the human body with ought using human volunteers or animals. They have created a way to mimic the cell of the body onto slides to test how it effects the human body called vitro testing . Apparently the leading scientist in these fields have been looking for other ways to test but not on animals. They've also dedvolped a simulation

Some people might argue that there is no better alternatives for testing then animals. Over the years, however, science has created many alternatives for animal use in testing. One alternative is, using donated human tissue and organs. With this method less animals will die for human research. This has also been proven to be up to 20% more accurate than an animal testing (Neavs). Another alternative would be microdosing. Microdosing would take human volunteers and give them small doses of drugs high enough to cause an effect but not high enough to affect the entire body (The Hastings Center). By using these alternatives, less animals will be used

Using animals for research is not reliable in predicting the outcome of new chemicals on the human body system. According to American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animals studies go on to fail in human clinical trials.” That indicates that almost ninety percent of traditional animal experiments fail in human trials. Although humans are similar to animals, they still do not have the exact genetic make up as animals. American Anti-Vivisection Society claims that, “Even the same species have similar differences that can be found among different genders, breeds, ages and weight ranges, and ethnic backgrounds.” For example, humans react to new products differently because nobody is genetically the same. Some people experience the therapeutic effect of a drug and then others may have an allergic reaction to the drug. Even in the human species researchers see that not all drugs or products produce the same ideal results that are expected. If there were such wide variations of results between the same species why would it be logical to test products intended for human use on animals? This is a question that most advocates for alternative methods to animal testing would ask.

or high fidelity simulator she allowed the girls to prep her abdomen with sterile based prep solution and talked them through. This role playing simulation was of great help to the learner’s as evidenced by a debriefing session a little later. It helped their confidence and prepared them for an actual prep.

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.