> Basic principles of improvisational theater: (Yes exactly And, enjoy failure, let your partner shine)

> Techniques for transforming mistakes and failure into something positive/opportunities

> games to get to know each other

> Warm-up exercises from the field of improvisational theater

> Exercises in self-perception and perception of others.

> Scenic exercises in plenary

• Students analyze and reflect on verbal and non-verbal communication processes in improvised scenic acting and derive strategies for constructive, cooperative interaction in complex social situations.

• Students use improvisational theater techniques to systematically transform mistakes, failure and uncertainty into opportunities for learning and development.

• Students design psychologically safe group settings and evaluate their effect on the social cohesion of the plenum.

Lecture, small group exercises

Continuous assessment: Attendance and active participation

< Foundations for simulation participation: mindset, norms, and patient-/client-centered orientation; integrity beyond compliance. 

< Professional integrity as a core element of professional practice 

< Introduction to the mindset needed for effective participation in simulation-based education: Integrity, dignity, psychological safety, clear boundaries; inclusive verbal and nonverbal communication. 

< Reflection on ethical standards and their relevance in simulation: Ethical/professional frameworks: principles and discipline-specific codes; shared interprofessional standards. Core ethical standards: respect, trust, confidentiality, professional conduct 

< Translating ethical principles into concrete behaviors during simulation 

< Demonstrating understanding of integrity in interpersonal interactions within simulation settings

• Students critically analyze the ethical and professional frameworks that guide professional integrity in interprofessional practice and apply these principles during simulation scenarios.

• Students demonstrate accountability and transparency when making decisions in simulation, articulating the reasoning processes that uphold professional integrity across disciplinary boundaries.

• Students evaluate the impact of personal values, professional codes, and team dynamics on integrity-driven decision-making, and adapt behaviours to maintain trust, respect, and patient-centredness in simulated environments.

• Students integrate reflective practice methodologies to systematically analyze one’s own performance in simulation, identifying how professional integrity shaped communication, role clarity, and collaborative interactions.

• Students advocate for integrity-based practice within interprofessional teams by providing constructive, evidence-informed feedback that promotes ethical conduct, psychological safety, and shared professional responsibility.

Impulse lectures and interactive short inputs

Continuous assessment

< Basics of psychological safety: definition of the term; historical development from organizational psychology; differences to comfort (growth mindset vs. feel-good atmosphere).

< Models of psychological safety: Clark's four-level model (Inclusion, Learner, Contributor, Challenger Safety) and Team Psychological Safety Scale; Just Culture models in healthcare; comparison with TeamSTEPPS and Crew Resource Management.

< Antecedents and barriers: Individual factors such as proactive personality, emotional stability, learning orientation; team factors such as inclusive leadership, role clarity, peer support; organizational influences (error culture, power structures, hierarchies, diversity).

< Strategies for creating a "safe container": prebriefing techniques, learning contracts, building trust; positive appreciation, non-verbal communication, asking questions; dealing with emotions and reactance; restoring safety after disruptions.

< Debriefing and psychological safety: importance of safety for effective reflection; balance between feedback and protection from loss of face; models such as Good Judgment, PEARLS; dealing with defensive behavior and hierarchies.

< Sociological and cultural aspects: Power imbalances, role models, gender, intersectionality; influence of organizational culture on error reporting and "speak-up"; international comparison.

< Andragogy and learning in safe environments: Andragogical principles (self-direction, experience, relevance, practice orientation, respectful attitude); importance of reflection, feedback and experience for sustainable learning.

< Evaluation of psychological safety: application of instruments such as the Team Psychological Safety Questionnaire; observation criteria in simulations; quality assurance.

• Students analyze theoretical foundations, influencing factors and organizational barriers to psychological safety and evaluate their significance for learning processes, team dynamics and patient/client safety.

• Students develop evidence-based strategies to promote psychological safety and apply these in a targeted manner in prebriefings, briefings and debriefings using structured and implicit measures (e.g. learning contracts, inclusive leadership behavior, active listening).

• Students design and moderate simulation-based learning settings that systematically create psychological safety, integrating insights from sociology, psychology and andragogy to promote reflection and professional learning.

• Students critically reflect on their own leadership and communication behavior, identify personal triggers and biases and derive professional measures for the further development of safe team and learning cultures.

• Students take on leadership roles in heterogeneous teams, communicate in an appreciative and inclusive manner and apply just-culture principles to create responsible learning environments and implement strategic decisions in a team context.

Impulse lectures and interactive short inputs

Continuous assessment: Practical examination, portfolio

• Foundations of learning and teaching theories: Behaviorism (Skinner; learning through reinforcement), cognitivism (information processing, memory structures), constructivism (learning as an active, constructive process), social-cognitive theory (Bandura's self-efficacy and observational learning), humanistic theory (Rogers), connectivism and sociocultural approaches.

• Adult education / andragogy: Andragogical principles such as self-direction, experience orientation, relevance, practical relevance and respect; role of reflection and lifelong learning.

• Cognitive load theory: limited capacity of working memory, instructional design to reduce external load, segmentation and progression; model progression and active integration of representations.

• Mastery learning and deliberate practice: learning to mastery (outcome-based rather than time-based); continuous feedback loops; progressive difficulty; importance for patient safety and skill development.

• Instructional design and curriculum development: Using the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) to systematically develop simulation-based curricula. Consideration of fidelity, goal definition, feedback methods and assessment.

• Feedback and debriefing: difference between feedback (information) and debriefing (reflection), forms and timing of feedback; role of psychological safety.

• Sociological and psychological aspects: Group processes, team dynamics, social identity, power relations; influence of culture and diversity; self-efficacy and motivation. Reflection on implicit bias.

• Evaluation of simulation and learning: use of taxonomic models (Bloom, Miller) to derive learning objectives and evaluation; formative vs. summative assessment; measurement of transfer performance and practical relevance.

• Students analyze central learning theories (including behaviorism, constructivism, social-cognitive theory, cognitive load theory, mastery learning, andragogy) and compare their assumptions with regard to their relevance for the design of simulation-based learning processes.

• Students derive theory-based design principles for simulations from learning psychology, didactic and social science theories and evaluate their implementation, including progression models, difficulty progression, forms of feedback, fidelity decisions and the control of cognitive load.

• Students design simulation-based scenarios based on differentiated learning objectives and performance levels, integrating psychological (e.g. motivation, self-efficacy) and sociological factors (e.g. role and power structures) in order to create high-quality learning environments.

• Students evaluate simulation-based teaching/learning settings using structured criteria (e.g. Bloom, Miller) and assess the learning success in a theory-based manner at the levels of knowledge, application, analysis and synthesis in order to systematically develop the quality and effectiveness of the simulation.

Lecture with exercises, interactive elements and group discussions

Final exam: Oral examination

• Meaning and functions of learning outcomes in simulation-based learning
• Types and levels of learning outcomes (cognitive, psychomotor, affective)
• Learning outcomes in constructive alignment (relation to teaching/learning activities and assessment)
• Formulation of competence-oriented and verifiable learning outcomes (SMART, Bloom, Miller)
• Ethical and context-sensitive aspects in the formulation (psychological safety, target group orientation)
• Use and critical analysis of AI-supported tools in the development of learning outcomes
• Analysis and theory-based revision of existing learning outcomes
• Basics of evaluating learning outcomes in the context of simulations

• Students critically analyze the meaning, functions and areas of application of learning outcomes in simulation-based learning and evaluate their relevance for the design of teaching/learning processes in a well-founded manner.

• Students formulate competence-oriented and verifiable learning outcomes based on theory and link these to suitable teaching/learning activities and assessments within the framework of constructive alignment.

• Students consider ethical and context-sensitive aspects, in particular psychological safety and target group orientation, when formulating learning outcomes and integrate these into their learning objectives in a well-founded manner.

• Students analyze and process existing learning outcomes in a theory-based manner and systematically evaluate their quality in the context of simulation-based learning environments.

Flipped classroom; peer review / peer feedback; case-based learning

Continuous assessment

> Overview and comparative mapping of INACSL, SSH, and ASPE standards

> Writing measurable outcomes for simulation based education by analyzing and integrating INACSL Outcomes & Objectives and Simulation Design criteria

> How standards translate into audit tools for accreditation evidence; and/or a standards audit for a simulation centre or course

> Framing focused questions about standards, accreditation, and outcomes (e.g., learner performance, patient safety, team functioning); basic searching and critical appraisal refresher

> Argue a position, supported by literature, on how standards/accreditation influence the local or aspirational context.

• Students compare and contrast key domains of the INACSL Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice® (including the 2025 Cornerstones of Best Practice), SSH accreditation standards, and ASPE Standards of Best Practice (SOBP), and articulate how they collectively define quality in simulation- and SP-based education.

• Students create and analyze learning outcomes for an interprofessional simulation-based learning activity that align explicitly with the INACSL Outcomes & Objectives, Simulation Design, and Simulation-Enhanced IPE standards.

• Students evaluate the content and conceptual alignment between selected INACSL standards (e.g. Operations, Outcomes & Objectives, Facilitation, Debriefing, Professional Integrity), the SSH Core and Teaching Education standards and the ASPE standards.

• Students critically synthesize empirical literature on standards for simulation focusing on IPE to answer a self-identified practice or research question related to simulation quality, SP methodology, or interprofessional collaboration.

• Students develop an implementation plan that uses INACSL, SSH, and ASPE standards within the learners’ local program, and justify decisions with theory and evidence.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment

Scientific thinking and research in an interprofessional context:

< Deepening scientific thinking, argumentation and working methods in interprofessional contexts of the health care sector

< Translating complex practical and simulation problems into precise, scientifically based research questions

< Reflection on responsibility and integrity in the scientific knowledge process

Information literacy and literature evaluation:

< Strategic and efficient literature research in subject-specific and interdisciplinary databases

< Assessing scientific sources according to quality and relevance criteria (level of evidence, methodology, topicality, peer review)

< Structured organization of literature with the help of literature management tools

< In-depth understanding of scientific citation logic and its ethical, methodological and institutional significance

Scientific text production and communication:

<Planning, structuring and writing scientific text samples in compliance with international citation and formatting standards

< Application of argumentation-logical and evidence-based writing techniques

< Developing a coherent scientific line of argument in your own specialist context

Digital and AI-supported tools in science:

< Critical reflection on the use of AI-based and digital tools in the research process

< Application of AI-supported systems for research, structural and text support, taking into account transparency, traceability and scientific ethical principles

• Students critically analyze complex problems from various professional fields in the healthcare sector, contextualize them interprofessionally and translate them into precise, scientifically based research questions.

• Students reflect on responsibility, integrity and ethical dimensions of scientific knowledge processes and apply the guidelines of good scientific practice independently and in accordance with the rules in their own work.

• Students conduct strategic and efficient research in subject-specific and interdisciplinary databases, critically evaluate scientific sources according to quality, relevance and evidence criteria and document literature in a comprehensible manner using digital management tools.

• Students write structured, methodologically sound and argumentatively coherent scientific texts in compliance with current citation and formatting standards and communicate results in an appropriate and evidence-based manner.

• Students use digital and AI-supported systems (e.g. Zotero, Connected Papers, ResearchRabbit, Academic AI) in a critically reflected manner to support academic research, structuring and writing processes and ensure transparency, traceability and ethical responsibility.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Submission of a scientific problem (partial performance 1), submission of a sample exposé (partial performance 2)

• Overview of different simulation modalities (low-, medium- and high-fidelity simulation, computer-based simulation, standardized patients, hybrid simulations)
  • Characteristics, strengths, limitations and resource requirements
  • Assessment and selection of suitable forms of simulation depending on learning objectives, target groups and skills to be developed
• Concept of fidelity
  • Introduction to the concept and dimensions of fidelity
  • Discussion of the importance of fidelity for learning success, realism and transfer to everyday practice
  • Reflection on the balance between realism, costs, practicability and didactic added value
• Practical moulage exercise:
  • Application of various materials and techniques to create realistic training scenarios
  • Testing and reflecting on the use of moulage in the context of different fidelity levels

• Students analyze and evaluate different simulation modalities with regard to their objectives, target group and application context and make well-founded decisions for a didactic method.

• Students describe and analyze the concept of fidelity and critically evaluate its significance for the design and goal achievement of simulation training.

• Students plan, design and reflect on simulation-based teaching-learning scenarios in accordance with constructive alignment, taking into account different simulation modalities and fidelity, in order to develop evidence-based and learning goal-oriented training sequences for interprofessional teams.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Submission of a simulation scenario (partial achievement 1), independent production and presentation of a moulage (partial achievement 2), active participation in the implementation of a simulation scenario in a small group (partial achievement 3)

> Definition of low fidelity simulation and skills training

Differentiation between low, medium and high fidelity simulations

Characteristics and objectives of low fidelity simulations

Definition: What does "skills training" mean in a university context?

Practical examples from the healthcare sector

Didactic objectives of both forms of training

< Strengths and weaknesses of the simulation types "low fidelity simulation" and "skills training"

Comparison of degree of complexity, costs and learning transfer

Analysis of effectiveness in relation to cognitive, psychomotor and social learning objectives

Classification in the didactic setting (preparation, implementation, transfer)

Limits of fidelity to reality and effects on learning effectiveness

< Intended learning outcomes appropriate to the simulation types "low fidelity simulation" and "skills training"

Assignment of learning outcomes to knowledge, skill and competence levels

Examples of observable actions for checking the outcomes

Reflection on learning outcomes with regard to job-related requirements

< "Cognitive apprenticeship" model for skills training and the role of the skills trainer

Basics and phases of the cognitive apprenticeship model (modeling, coaching, scaffolding, etc.)

Transfer to the context of practical skills training

Designing learning environments according to the model

< Methodical possibilities of reflective learning in low fidelity simulation and skills training

Different requirements for reflection processes depending on the form of simulation

• Students reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the simulation-based forms of learning "low fidelity simulation" and "skills training" and, based on the concept of constructive alignment, justify the intended learning outcomes for which these forms of learning can be used in a targeted manner.

• Based on the concept of constructive alignment, students write structured, target group-oriented teaching dispositions for their professional group, in which low fidelity simulation or skills training are suitable learning formats, and justify their didactic approach.

• Students describe and reflect on the use of the "Cognitive Apprenticeship" model in skills training in a self-experienced or fictitious teaching/learning situation in their professional group.

• Students analyze and reflect on their experiences from low-fidelity and skills training under changing role perspectives (participants and observers) in order to derive insights for interprofessional action in complex care situations.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions, low fidelity simulation training and skills training

Continuous assessment: Submission of teaching disposition (optionally for low fidelity simulation or skills training) (partial performance 1), submission of description of use of "Cognitive Apprenticeship" model (partial performance 2)

> Introduction to the concept of fidelity

> Introduction to Fictional Contract

> Definition, areas of application and differentiation of high fidelity

> Planning and implementation of high fidelity

> Tips and tricks

• Students reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of high-fidelity simulation.

• Students reflect on the differences between high-fidelity simulation and other types of simulation and can use them in a targeted manner.

• Students reflect on fidelity and fictional contract in the context of simulation.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Written examination

Overview of computer-based simulation options:

< Branching Choice Games

< Simulation video games

< Mixed reality/extended reality (virtual reality/augmented reality)

< Asset sourcing

< Use of artificial intelligence

Branching choice games:

< Structure

< Applications

< Target group, examples, advantages/disadvantages

Simulation video games:

< Basic knowledge of software development in video games

< Graphics, sound

< Platforms: Smartphone, PC/game console

< Target group, examples, advantages/disadvantages

Mixed reality/extended reality (virtual reality/augmented reality):

< Basic knowledge of software development for MR/XR and engines

< Graphics, sound, haptics

< Platforms: Manufacturers, variants

< Areas of application, examples, advantages/disadvantages

Practical exercises:

< Carrying out simulation scenarios on different platforms and documenting the observations in a seminar paper

< One example each for: Branching choice games, video games, MR/XR

Evaluation and scientific analysis

• Students have in-depth knowledge of and practical experience with various computer-based simulation modalities, analyze their application contexts, target groups and fidelity levels critically and classify them correctly.

• Students carry out scenarios in various computer-based simulations and analyze the respective technologies used for their possibilities and limits.

• Students design and justify their own scenario for simulation software in a low-fidelity setting using relevant didactic and technical principles.

• Students document, deepen and critically reflect on the knowledge they have acquired and their findings in a scientifically sound written paper.

Self-study on basic knowledge, performance assessment in the first course unit, theory unit on specific specialist knowledge in attendance, practical exercises with accompanying/concluding seminar paper

Continuous assessment: Initial test on self-study content, performance of practical small group exercises and documentation in a seminar paper, assessment after each partial submission and final submission.

> Introduction to working with SPs

> Scenario planning with SPs

> Moulage: active exercise with moulage material (burns, cuts, gunshot wounds, decubitus ulcers, hematomas, etc.)

> Facilities and Staffing

> Recruitment & Training

> Debriefing with SPs

> Feedback and evaluations when working with SPs

• After completing the course, students develop and write standardized patient encounters and scenarios independently.

• After completing the course, students develop a critical and reflective recruitment and training program for standardized patients.

• After completing the course, students apply moulage to standardized patients.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Simulation training with standardized patients

Continuous assessment: Submission of an SP scenario (partial achievement 1), active participation in moulage exercise (partial achievement 2), implementation of an SP scenario in small groups (partial achievement 3)

Formative vs. summative in interprofessional simulation:

< Clearly differentiate objectives, timing, consequences and roles of formative vs. summative assessments and exemplify using short vignettes

< Compare typical application windows (briefing, scenario, debriefing, OSCE station, team drill) and their learning effects

< Clarify precise definitions (assessment, feedback, feedforward, decision) and common misconceptions

< Reflect on the effects of categorization on the learning climate, motivation and scope for action of the professions

Instruments & application logic:

< Compare checklist, global rating and team rubric in purpose, observation focus (individual vs. team) and feasibility

< Define comparison criteria: purpose, observability, IP focus, resources; name contraindication for each instrument

< Create comparison matrix (at least 3 instruments x 5 criteria) and apply to example scenario

< Mapping: scenario requirements à suitable instrument set (incl. briefly justified selection)

• Students distinguish between formative and summative assessments in interprofessional simulations along the lines of objectives, timing, consequences and roles and name typical formats/instruments per category.

• Students compare assessment types and formats based on defined criteria and justify a context-sensitive selection for a given scenario.

• Students derive suitable assessments from self-selected learning objectives in their subject area, formulate observable performance indicators (critical actions/descriptors) and define adequate fulfillment conditions for each learning objective.

• Students develop an assessment concept for a selected learning objective, select a suitable instrument, determine the weighting of the assessment criteria, the assessment dimensions and the scale levels.

• The students carry out their assessment in a standardized manner in the face-to-face session, give structured, behavior-based feedback and evaluate the fit, feasibility and learning impact of their design; from this they derive concrete improvements (stop-start-continue).

Synchronous kick-off (online), asynchronous preparation via online learning platform, synchronous (simulation) face-to-face event

Continuous assessment: Asynchronous work assignments (online, TL 1), synchronous work assignments (presence, TL 2)

Patient simulators

< Types and areas of application of simulators

< Design and functional principles of high-fidelity simulators

< Control and monitoring structures of common systems

Audio-video systems

< Technical basics of AV systems in the context of simulation

< Main components: Cameras, microphones, recording software and end devices

< Technical structure and signal paths

< Typical application scenarios

Interrelationships in the simulation setting

< Interaction and integration of technical components to form a functioning overall system

< Communication structures between simulator, AV system, control software and network

< Fundamentals of technical system understanding in the operation of a simulation setting

Technical fidelity as a component of realistic simulations

< Definition and conceptual classification of technical fidelity in the overall concept of simulation

< Dimensions and influencing factors of technical fidelity

Operation of simulation technologies

< Preparation and control of simulators

< Use of audio-video systems for recording and controlling simulations

Strategies for limited technical resources

< Compensating for a lack of technology through didactic or organizational design

< Technical simplification of complex scenarios

Dealing with technical difficulties

< Setting up fail-safes and emergency strategies

< Structured troubleshooting

• Students analyze central simulation technologies and their functional principles, critically integrate them into didactic contexts and independently assess their contribution to learning processes and the achievement of objectives in simulation-based training settings.

• The students explain the interaction and dependencies of technical components (simulator, medical technology, audio-video systems, ...) and design targeted simulation settings in which the use of technology and the degree of realism are aligned with the learning objectives.

• Students analyze the differences and possible applications of various simulation technologies and evaluate them in a differentiated manner depending on the degree of realism, scenario requirements and available resources.

• Students use simulation technologies in a reflected and situation-appropriate manner, apply basic troubleshooting strategies systematically and evaluate technical problems independently in order to recognize, compensate for and document them in a comprehensible manner.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Development of a structured technical concept for the implementation of a simulation scenario with didactic justification of the technology used

Design and structure of simulation centers

< Spatial requirements and technical framework conditions

< Organizational connection and administration

< Personnel requirements and qualification profiles

< Infrastructure and operation

< Data protection aspects

Aspects of planning a simulation center

< Possible stakeholders and interest groups

< Rough resource planning

< Special work packages and their essential partners (AV system, ...)

< Planning and implementation phases

Success factors for sustainable establishment

< Key figures (room utilization, user satisfaction, technical failures, ...)

< Accreditations for centers and simulation programs

< User-centered development and strategic cooperation

• Students identify and evaluate spatial, technical and personnel requirements for the planning, construction and operation of a simulation center, including room concept, flow of people, AV and IT systems as well as role and qualification profiles of personnel.

• Students analyze key challenges and success factors in the initiation, planning, implementation and operation phases of simulation centers and derive practical solution strategies for project organization and resource planning.

• Students analyze and evaluate framework conditions and options for the introduction or further development of simulation centers in the respective institutional context.

• Students reflect on and assess factors for the sustainable establishment and quality assurance of simulation facilities, including operational concept, aspects of evaluation, accreditation and continuous improvement.

Self-study, lecture and group discussions

Final exam: Submission of a concept paper on the possibility of implementing simulation rooms in one's own work area or further development of existing centers, including possible hurdles, resource estimates and factors for sustainable use.

• Simulation environments and equipment
  • Types of simulation rooms
  • Basic equipment in clinical simulation areas
  • Medical equipment
  • Simulators and training devices: low-, mid- and high-fidelity simulators, skill trainers
  • Mobile and functional equipment: multifunctional trolleys, A/V debriefing systems
  • Consumables and presentation materials: artificial blood, moulages, foreign bodies, sheets, pads, etc.
• Parameters and categories of simulation design
  • Types of medical situations (e.g. resuscitation, birth, fall, ward round, triage, diagnostics, outpatient treatment)
  • Fidelity level (low, mid, high)
  • Scenario sequences (static, dynamically structured, dynamically spontaneous)
  • Variations in group size
  • Team compositions (monodisciplinary vs. interprofessional with up to 3 professional groups)

• Scenario development with a technical focus
  • Structure and components of a scenario plan
  • Selection and allocation of equipment, equipment and resources
  • Comparison of material availability and adaptation of scenarios
  • Criteria and standards for the approval of scenario plans

• Implementation and analysis
  • Practical setup and realization of simulation scenarios
  • Documentation of planning, implementation, observations and results
  • Basics of evaluation and scientific analysis of simulations

• Students have in-depth knowledge and practice-based experience of different modalities, materials and methods in simulation facilities and critically assess their application contexts, target groups and fidelity levels.

• Students develop simulation scenarios within the framework of given spatial, technical and organizational possibilities, determine the need for additional, improvised and tailor-made possibilities and can design and evaluate innovative or optimized simulation strategies on the basis of sound analysis.

• Students put developed scenarios into practice, reflect on and critically evaluate their implementation and, on this basis, identify optimization potential and quality-enhancing measures for the sustainable improvement of simulation-based formats.

Self-study, lecture and practical exercises

Final exam: Submission of a written project report

> Overview and comparative mapping of various IPE/IPC models

• Definition and scope of IPE/IPC frameworks
• Key components and structural elements of major models
• Case examples illustrating model application

>Synthesize, and translate evidence for best practices in IPE and collaborative practice

• Identification and critical appraisal of current evidence in IPE and IPC
• Adaptation of best practices to local contexts and institutional settings
• Barriers and enablers to evidence-based implementation in interprofessional settings

>Analyze how roles, power, and collaborative leadership plays in team relationship and function that may foster or hinder IPE/IPC

• Roles and professional identities within interprofessional teams
• Power structures and hierarchies influencing team relationships
• Collaborative leadership approaches and their impact on interprofessional collaboration

• Students critically analyze and evaluate various theoretical models of interprofessional collaboration (e.g., CIHC, IPEC/UK-CAIPE frameworks), appraising their applicability and limitations for simulation-based education in diverse healthcare contexts.

• Students apply and adapt interprofessional collaboration models and competency domains to integrate complex simulated care scenarios, identifying strengths, gaps, and context strategies for enhancing collaboration.

• Students design and justify evidence-informed interprofessional communication and teamwork strategies (e.g., TeamSTEPPS/Team FIRST, speaking-up tools) that mitigate person/care-partner safety risks in simulated healthcare settings.

• Students evaluate and integrate diverse professional roles and partners (including persons, families, and non-regulated providers) within interprofessional teams to optimize collaborative decision-making and relationship-focused care in simulations.

• Students create an interprofessional simulation-based education activity (learning outcomes, scenario outline, debriefing plan) mapped to CIHC, IPEC, and UK/CAIPE principles, demonstrating advanced integration of IPE and IPC concepts.

Lecture with take home exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Submission of written assignment

> Writing roles-focused learning objectives and aligning them with scenario design, facilitation strategies, and debriefing structures.

> Comparison of models in terms of role clarity, power dynamics, and the distribution of leadership and decision-making across professions.

> Strategies for making roles and scope of practice explicit in simulation: task allocation, handover points, “who leads when,” and escalation pathways (speaking up)

>Use of specific communication tools (e.g., SBAR, advocacy & assertion, closed-loop communication) to operationalize role clarity and escalation in practice.

>Concepts of collaborative leadership, followership, and shared decision-making in interprofessional teams.

> Exploration of role flexibility (e.g., assessment, education, care coordination) and how overlapping roles can be harnessed to support, rather than compete with, each other.

• Students critically appraise key theoretical models of interprofessional collaboration with specific attention to how they conceptualize team member roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities in simulation-based learning contexts.

• Students adapt interprofessional collaboration models to simulated care contexts by explicitly articulating, justifying, and revising role allocations, scope-of-practice boundaries, and handover points for different professions.

• Students analyze interprofessional communication and teamwork processes in simulation through the lens of role clarity, power, and expertise, and design strategies (e.g., speaking up, advocacy & assertion, structured handovers) that enhance collaboration and mitigate patient/client safety risks.

• Students evaluate and integrate the distinct and overlapping roles of interprofessional team members to co-create explicit role agreements, leadership/followership patterns, and contingency plans that optimize collaborative decision-making in simulated and real-world practice settings.

• Students design and integrate interprofessional simulation-based education activities that deliberately develop learners’ competencies in role clarification, role negotiation, and collaborative practice across diverse healthcare settings.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Submission of written assignment

> Fundamentals of interprofessional collaboration

Definitions and objectives of interprofessional education (IPE); understanding the roles of the professions involved; WHO/CAIPE definition ("learning with, from and about each other").

> TeamSTEPPS framework

Introduction to the five core components: Team Structure, Communication, Leadership, Situation Observation and Mutual Support; practical exercises and application of the Team Performance Observation Tool (TPOT).

> Crisis Resource Management (CRM / eCRM)

Principles such as clear roles, effective communication, delegation, situational awareness and resource management; application in emergency simulations.

> Communication models

SBAR/ISBAR/SINNHAFT (Situation - Background - Assessment - Recommendation), closed-loop communication, "10 Seconds for 10 Minutes", tools for handovers and team communication; importance for patient/client safety.

> Social identity, role and systems theory

Influence of professional roles on interaction; power relations, gender, hierarchy; social trust and conflict management.

> Psychological aspects

Group development (Tuckman), leadership theories, conflict resolution, decision-making under stress, emotion perception and regulation.

> Andragogy

Andragogical principles (self-direction, experience-based learning, relevance, problem solving) in the design of interprofessional training; transfer into practice.

> Debriefing

Importance of reflection for learning success; methods for interprofessional debriefings; promotion of psychological safety; structured debriefing models (e.g. Good Judgment, PEARLS).

> Evaluation and quality assurance

Use of validated instruments such as TPOT, T-TPQ, IPEC self-assessment; scientific evaluation of team simulations; transfer into practice.

• Students critically analyze complex team interactions in simulation-based settings and integrate theories from sociology, psychology, and andragogy to interpret communication and cooperation processes.

• Students apply frameworks such as TeamSTEPPS and concepts from Crew/Crisis Resource Management to optimize non-technical skills and create structured briefings, define roles and use tools such as SBAR/ISBAR/SINNHAFT to communicate information clearly.

• Students design and conduct interprofessional simulations, considering the learning objectives as well as cultural and professional diversity.

• Students demonstrate situationally appropriate, empathetic, and respectful communication behavior, reflect on their own influence, evaluate their own teamwork and communication performance using video analysis, feedback, and portfolio work, and promote collegial interaction. They draw lessons from successes and failures and implement sustainable improvements for their own professional practice.

• Students take on leadership roles in interprofessional teams as appropriate to the situation, promote collegial leadership, and structure or delegate their decision-making processes in order to remain capable of acting in critical situations.

High-fidelity simulations with role-playing, TeamSTEPPS ‑exercises and communication drills, Crisis Resource Management (E ‑CRM) and emergency scenarios, short presentations and interactive discussions, video-assisted reflection and peer ‑feedback and portfolio work

Continuous assessment: practical examination performance, portfolio

Collaboration as a core element of professional practice 

• Exhibit a respectful interprofessional approach and consistently apply INACSL Healthcare Standards of Best Practice™ Sim Design and Simulation-Enhanced Interprofessional Education
  • principles in all decision-making and development activities to promote a safe and supportive learning environment.
• Identify key components of Interprofessional Education and Collaboration (IPE/IPC) models to achieve learning outcomes. Case examples illustrating application of the key aspects of IPE/IPC
• Integrate the CIHC Competency Framework, INACSL Simulation Design, and INACSL Simulation-Enhanced Interprofessional Education for interprofessional simulations

Strengthen analytical skills by identifying potential barriers and gaps when implementing existing IPE/IPC scenarios and proposing improvements.

• Case examples illustrating application of key elements
• Analyze interprofessional simulation scenarios  and provide evidence based rational arguments for improvements

Demonstrate competency in pedagogically standards that foster interprofessional collaboration.

• Collaborate in groups (minimum 3 different Professions) to apply evidence-based strategies (INACSL HSSOBP™ Sim Design and Enhance IPE criteria) to identify key elements to consider when developing an effective interprofessional simulation-based education activity appropriately leveled to all learners (KSA)

• Students critically integrate interprofessional collaboration frameworks to create an interprofessional simulation-based education activity addressing clinical, practical, organizational, and communication challenges to achieve shared objectives and improve health outcomes.

• Students critically analyze barriers that limit the effectiveness of interprofessional education (IPE) simulation scenarios, systematically identify their root causes, and apply evidence-based and collaboratively developed solutions to improve interprofessional learning outcomes.

• Students critically integrate evidence-based standards of interprofessional simulation-based education that enhances teamwork, clarify roles, fosters psychological safety, collaboration, and equitable participation within healthcare teams.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Written Assignment

Fundamentals

• Origin and development of the human factors approach in aviation and healthcare
• Historical milestones in patient/clientsafety (e.g. To Err is Human, WHO initiatives)
• Key concepts: situational awareness, workload, cognitive ergonomics, non-technical skills
• Systemic perspectives on safety: micro, meso and macro level
• Differentiation between person-centered vs. systemic explanations of errors
• Models and frameworks (Swiss Cheese model/ SEIPS (human-technology-organization)/ Safety I and Safety II/ High Reliability Organizations)
• Fundamental attribution error and risks of "human blaming"
• Principles of andragogy (self-direction, experience, relevance, practical orientation) to make human factors training effective for learning.

Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Crisis Resource Management

• Central CRM components: Communication/ teamwork/ leadership/ decision making/ situational awareness/ workload and stress management
• Difference between: Crew Resource Management and Crisis / Emergency Resource Management
• Integration of structured communication tools (ISBAR, Closed Loop Communication/SINNHAFT) and checklists.
• Limits of transfer to the healthcare sector
• Current evidence and critical reflection on implementation strategies and sustainability

Error occurrence, error analysis and safety culture

• Active vs. latent errors
• Analysis and classification models (Root Cause Analysis (RCA)/ Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)/ Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS))
• Just culture: basic principles/ balance between individual responsibility and system responsibility/ differentiation from blame-free and punitive cultures
• Cultural and organizational barriers to open error reporting

Team structures, team dynamics and interprofessional collaboration

• Models of team development (Tuckman and Drexler/Sibbet)
• Analysis of team dysfunctions (Lencioni)
• Comparison of hierarchical vs. flat team structures
• Roles, power, status and hierarchies in interprofessional teams
• Importance of trust, conflict management and inclusive language
• Leadership concepts: situational leadership/ transformational leadership/ shared leadership
• Motivation theories (Maslow, Herzberg) and job enrichment
• Promoting resilient, learning-oriented and communicative teams

Communication, speak-up culture and psychological safety

• Structured communication tools: SBAR / ISBAR / Closed Loop Communication
• Speak-up culture and deference to expertise
• Dealing with hierarchy, power and authority in critical situations
• Communicating about errors within the team and to patients/clients and relatives (empathetic disclosure)
• Emotional reactions to mistakes and their reflection
• Designing psychologically safe learning and working environments

Evaluation, quality assurance and innovation

• Observation and evaluation tools: CRM checklists/ team performance observation tools (e.g. TPOT)/ NASA Task Load Index/ Kirkpatrick model

• Students explain the basic principles of Human Factors Engineering and Crew/Crisis Resource Management (CRM), analyze their central components and critically relate them to current safety-related challenges in the healthcare sector.

• Students critically evaluate current research literature on human factors and CRM, recognize the heterogeneity of the evidence base and reflect on limited effects as well as systemic and ethical points of criticism. From this, they develop well-founded, theory-based positions and derive research questions and alternative, system-oriented intervention approaches.

• Students critically classify systemic and person-centred perspectives on the occurrence of errors in healthcare, recognize the interaction of organizational, social and individual factors and derive requirements for safety cultures and organizational design for error prevention.

• Students assess structural, communicative, social and organizational factors influencing team performance in healthcare, analyze evidence and limitations of current CRM implementation strategies and develop context-adapted concepts for the sustainable promotion of patient and client safety and team resilience.

• Students analyze organizational, communicative, social and structural factors of team performance, reflect on their influence on safety and learning cultures and integrate suitable evaluation instruments for evidence-based quality assurance in interprofessional contexts.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Practical and written partial performances, accompanying reflection portfolio

1. Basics of communication psychology
   • Developmental history, interdisciplinary perspectives and significance for patient/client safety and teamwork.
   • Schulz von Thun's four-sided model (factual information, self-revelation, relationship, appeal) and the responsibility of sender and receiver.
   • Paul Watzlawick's five axioms of communication: impossibility of non-communication, content-relationship aspect, cause-effect character, analog versus digital modalities, symmetrical versus complementary interactions.
   • Grice's principle of cooperation and the four maxims of conversation: quantity (contribute as informatively as necessary, but not more informatively), quality (assert only what is true with evidence), relation (relevant contributions) and man/clarity (express clearly, orderly and precisely). Discussion of implicatures and deliberate violations of the maxims in medical communication.
2. Positioning, roles and hierarchies
   • Introduction to positioning theories and discussion of moral implications (trust vs. mistrust).
   • Application to interprofessional teams: dealing with hierarchy, power, status and roles; promoting an open speak-up culture and using simulation to reduce hierarchical barriers.
   • Comparison with classic role theories (e.g. Goffman) and organizational communication.
3. Lifeworld and intersubjective understanding
   • Concepts of the lifeworld
   • Intersubjectivity as an ontologically given basis for living together: common assignment of meaning and social comparison; importance of language as a medium for sharing the lifeworld.
   • Transfer to simulation and patient safety: perception of different lifeworlds of team members and patients, dealing with cultural differences and implicit knowledge.
4. Communication breakdowns, conflicts and negotiations
   • Causes and types of communication disorders; influence of stress, emotional arousal, ambiguity and cultural differences. Application of de-escalating techniques and "I-messages".
   • Types of conflict (factual, relationship, value, role conflicts) and negotiation techniques (integrative strategies, bridging solutions, trade-offs); use of simulations for practice.
   • Decision-making models (e.g. RAPID) and team psychology, including group-related thinking errors.
5. Communication, human factors and patient/client safety
   • Connection between communication failure and errors in healthcare; presentation of standardized communication tools (ISBAR, closed-loop communication).
   • Psychological safety, speak-up and crew resource management. Dealing with non-technical skills (teamwork, leadership, situational awareness) and integration in simulation.
6. Andragogical aspects
   • Principles of andragogy (autonomy, experience, relevance, goal and practice orientation, respect) and their significance for the design of simulation training.
   • Design of environments conducive to learning with a high level of psychological safety; feedback methods and peer counseling.

• Students explain central communication models.

• Students analyze communicative rights and duties, reflect on hierarchies and power structures in interprofessional teams and develop strategies.

• Students explain concepts of phenomenological sociology (e.g. lifeworld, stock of knowledge, intersubjectivity) and use them for empathic, patient- and client-oriented communication and for a common understanding in teamwork.

• Students apply effective communication strategies (active listening, open questions, feedback and conflict resolution strategies) in simulation-based scenarios, address barriers such as hierarchy, stress or cultural differences and reflect on their own communication behavior using scientific literature and structured debriefings in order to derive continuous improvements.

Impulse lectures and interactive short inputs

Final exam: Colloquium (oral examination)

• Fundamentals of professional communication (Calgary-Cambridge model, ALOBA)
• Communication skills such as nonverbal communication, active listening, questioning techniques
• Communication with multiple parties and in intercultural contexts
• Managing emotions, stress, and conflict in medicinal-therapeutic practice
• Mindfulness, self-reflection, and professional attitude
• Feedback according to the ÖPGK-tEACH.standard and collegial learning in simulations

• Students analyze communication-related sources of error in medicinal-therapeutic conversations and derive specific measures to improve patient/client-centered communication.

• Students reflect on their own communication patterns in simulation-based communication scenarios with simulated patients and apply specific conversation skills in accordance with the Calgary Cambridge Guidelines in order to professionally manage human factors such as emotions and social dynamics.

• Students design conversations in challenging (high-risk) situations tailored to the target audience and evaluate their impact on patient/client safety, team coordination, and error prevention.

Standardized simulation training with drama patients according to the ÖPGK-tEACH standard, peer feedback, short inputs, reflection exercises

Continuous assessment: Active and reflective participation in communication training with drama patients

• Reflection on individual experiences in debriefing as a teacher and/or learner
• Development of moderation skills for the implementation of goal-oriented debriefings on the basis of constructivist didactics
• Prebriefing and briefing as factors influencing the implementation of the debriefing and the creation of psychological safety
• History and objectives of debriefing in simulation
• Participant orientation and Socratic questions
• Analysis of debriefing models in relation to the different types of simulation
• Dealing with challenging participants
• Balance between silence, listening and guidance
• Practical exercises

• Students reflect on their own learning and teaching actions in debriefing, recognize debriefing as a reflective practice for questioning assumptions and professional routines, name constructivist moderation requirements including error culture and feedback processes and apply suitable questioning techniques to design debriefings that promote learning.

• Students recognize factors influencing the implementation of the debriefing, integrate principles of psychological safety into its design and jointly develop rules for a constructive debriefing that encourages active participation and focuses on performance improvement rather than criticism.

• Students analyze the influence of prebriefing and briefing on the quality of debriefing, select suitable debriefing models with regard to the desired learning outcomes and evaluate their integration for their own professional practice.

• Students try out different ways of debriefing in a safe space, identify their own worries and fears regarding implementation and develop suitable solutions for dealing with them safely and professionally.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Realization and video documentation of a theoretical debriefing including preparation (prebriefing and briefing) (partial achievement 1) and written reflection on the debriefing process (partial achievement 2)

> Role of debriefing in the learning process: repetition of basic principles (reflective experience, purposeful feedback conversations), importance of psychological safety and interprofessional communication.

> In-depth frameworks (Good Judgment Model, PEARLS, Reflective Learning Conversation); practical application of debriefing frameworks

> Participants and situation-specific challenges: Deepening phenotypes, analyzing causes and effects; dealing with reactance through open questions, empathy and validation.

> Debriefer specific barriers: Recognizing cognitive biases, lack of knowledge and lack of preparation; applying the Debriefing Duties "Make it Safe - Make it Stick - Make it Last" to promote safety, sustainability and transfer.

> Practice using videos and real simulations, video-based reflection and use of technology: benefits and limitations of video-assisted debriefings; advantages for objectivity, change of perspective and performance improvement; use of AI-based feedback tools.

> Change of perspective and empathy: methods to promote perspective-taking, use of circular questions, role-playing with role reversal, empathic listening.

> Adult educational and sociological principles: principles of andragogy (self-direction, experience, relevance) for designing learner-centered debriefings; consideration of power structures, roles and norms in the team.

> Feedback in the sense of a "debrief the debriefer"

• Students analyze interprofessional debriefing situations guided by different frameworks, taking into account group roles, power structures, cultural differences and emotional dynamics, while integrating theoretical models from sociology, psychology and andragogy for a well-founded assessment of learning and team behavior.

• Students design and lead appreciative debriefings using established and innovative frameworks, adapt them flexibly to heterogeneous learning objectives and challenging participant groups and use professional communication strategies to promote participation, reflection and psychological safety.

• Students reflect on and evaluate their own debriefing practice using validated instruments as well as peer- and video-assisted feedback processes, manage emotional and social processes (e.g. reactance, strong emotions) professionally and develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality and further development of simulation training in their professional context.

Exercise in presence

Continuous assessment: Active participation in the workshop

< Discussion of self-selected topics from their studies and professional life in the context of health care simulation.

< Roles, tasks and boundaries of supervisees and the group in a peer consulting setting

< Structured intervision methods with a focus on simulation-based learning

< Dealing with critical events (“ lowlights ”) in simulation and everyday professional life (e.g. debriefing) – reflection on errors, role behavior and dynamics

< Self-reflection and self-regulation in complex teaching and learning settings

<Constructive feedback in interprofessional groups: techniques, rules, attitude

< Documentation and transfer of knowledge into learning portfolios

< Reflection on group dynamics and communication processes in simulated and real team settings

• Students systematically analyze and reflect on highlights and lowlights of their everyday studies and professional life, especially in the context of simulation-based learning, and continuously document their findings in a learning portfolio to promote their professional development.

• Students reflectively select relevant highlights and lowlights from their everyday studies or professional life, explain their significance in the learning process, and actively contribute these to supervision or intervision sessions. They participate constructively in the reflection processes of their fellow students through structured, appreciative feedback, taking into account the principles of psychological safety.

• The students document their individual learning processes from supervision and intervision in a structured learning portfolio, derive key insights and summarize them in a reflective and professionally sound manner.

• Through self-experience, students discover key principles of learning portfolio work and apply basic methods of intervision in a targeted and context-related manner to reflect on professional and study-related experiences.

Super/intervision in groups

Continuous assessment: Submission of learning journal products/entries based on supervision

• Psychological and sociological foundations: Reactance theory and its triggers (threat to freedom of action, meaning of freedom); social construction of reality, hierarchies, systemic thinking; meaning of group roles and interaction patterns.
• Framework models for debriefings: introduction to PEARLS (phases: setting the scene, reactions, description, analysis, application) and the cognitive support for facilitators; "Debriefing with Good Judgment" model and the balancing act of criticism and curiosity; discussion of common myths (debriefing as a luxury, neutrality).
• Difficult debriefing situations: Typologies of difficult behaviors such as silent or dominating participants, disinterest, emotional or defensive reactions; causes (fear, language barriers, trauma) and effects on the team.
• Proactive strategies: effective prebriefing, clear expectations, creating psychological safety (basic assumption, shared mental model); evidence-based design of framework conditions (room design, confidentiality).
• Reactive communication strategies: silence, validation, normalization, paraphrasing, generalization, naming dynamics; use of circular questions to explore interaction patterns; dealing with reactance through empathy and change of perspective; use of emotional regulation strategies (e.g. affect labeling, reappraisal).
• Reflection and transfer: analysis of own debriefings using videos, feedback and learning journal; derivation of personal development goals; consideration of adult educational principles (self-direction, relevance, problem solving).
• Interprofessional context: consideration of sociomaterial perspectives; importance of team interaction, power structures and artifacts in debriefing; promotion of interprofessional collaboration and leadership.

• Students analyze complex phenomena such as reactance, defensive behavior, hierarchical influences and group dynamics on a theoretical basis and integrate findings from sociology, psychology and andragogy in order to evaluate their significance for debriefing processes in a well-founded manner.

• Students compare debriefing frameworks (e.g. PEARLS, Debriefing with Good Judgment, Circular Questions), select suitable methods for challenging situations and use preventive and reactive strategies (e.g. silence, validation, paraphrasing, naming dynamics) in a structured and adaptive way.

• Students moderate empathically, establish psychological safety and react professionally to strong emotions by applying methods of interpersonal emotional regulation. They reflect on their own values and combine feedback with an inquisitive, appreciative attitude.

• Students take a systemic view of debriefings in an interprofessional context, use circular questions to analyze patterns of interaction and develop creative solutions for sustainable learning processes. In a leading role, they design complex debriefings, lead teams, evaluate their interventions based on evidence and derive improvements via peer feedback and current research.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Portfolio

> Role of debriefing in the learning process: repetition of basic principles (reflective experience, purposeful feedback conversations), importance of psychological safety and interprofessional communication.

> In-depth frameworks (Good Judgment Model, PEARLS, Reflective Learning Conversation); practical application of debriefing frameworks

> Participants and situation-specific challenges: Deepening phenotypes, analyzing causes and effects; dealing with reactance through open questions, empathy and validation.

> Debriefer specific barriers: Recognizing cognitive biases, lack of knowledge and lack of preparation; applying the Debriefing Duties "Make it Safe - Make it Stick - Make it Last" to promote safety, sustainability and transfer.

> Practice using videos and real simulations, video-based reflection and use of technology: benefits and limitations of video-assisted debriefings; advantages for objectivity, change of perspective and performance improvement; use of AI-based feedback tools.

> Change of perspective and empathy: methods to promote perspective-taking, use of circular questions, role-playing with role reversal, empathic listening.

> Adult educational and sociological principles: principles of andragogy (self-direction, experience, relevance) for designing learner-centered debriefings; consideration of power structures, roles and norms in the team.

> Feedback in the sense of a "debrief the debriefer"

• Students analyze interprofessional debriefing situations guided by different frameworks, taking into account group roles, power structures, cultural differences and emotional dynamics, while integrating theoretical models from sociology, psychology and andragogy for a well-founded assessment of learning and team behavior.

• Students design and lead appreciative debriefings using established and innovative frameworks, adapt them flexibly to heterogeneous learning objectives and challenging participant groups and use professional communication strategies to promote participation, reflection and psychological safety.

• Students reflect on and evaluate their own debriefing practice using validated instruments and peer- and video-assisted feedback processes, manage emotional and social processes (e.g. reactance, strong emotions) professionally and develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality and further development of simulation training in their professional context.

Exercise in presence

Continuous assessment: Active participation in the workshop

< Discussion of self-selected topics from their studies and professional life in the context of health care simulation.

< Roles, tasks and boundaries of supervisees and the group in a peer consulting setting

< Structured intervision methods with a focus on simulation-based learning

< Dealing with critical events (“ lowlights ”) in simulation and everyday professional life (e.g. debriefing) – reflection on errors, role behavior and dynamics

< Self-reflection and self-regulation in complex teaching and learning settings

<Constructive feedback in interprofessional groups: techniques, rules, attitude

< Documentation and transfer of knowledge into learning portfolios

< Reflection on group dynamics and communication processes in simulated and real team settings

• Students systematically analyze and reflect on highlights and lowlights of their everyday studies and professional life, especially in the context of simulation-based learning, and continuously document their findings in a learning portfolio to promote their professional development.

• Students reflectively select relevant highlights and lowlights from their everyday studies or professional life, explain their significance in the learning process, and actively contribute these to supervision or intervision sessions. They participate constructively in the reflection processes of their fellow students through structured, appreciative feedback, taking into account the principles of psychological safety.

• The students document their individual learning processes from supervision and intervision in a structured learning portfolio, derive key insights and summarize them in a reflective and professionally sound manner.

• Through self-experience, students discover key principles of learning portfolio work and apply basic methods of intervision in a targeted and context-related manner to reflect on professional and study-related experiences.

Super/intervision in groups

Continuous assessment: Submission of learning journal products/entries based on supervision

Structure of a scenario description with reference to cognitive apprenticeship

< Structure and design of an effective simulation scenario (incl. learning objectives, setting, role description, process, materials, scheduling)

< Safety & realism: design of realistic settings that are also conducive to learning

< Integration of psychological safety and ethical aspects into the scenario design

< Reflective use of AI in scenario development

Presentation of various design templates for scenarios

< Documentation and presentation of scenarios (text structure, appendix, checklists, briefings)

Standards for simulation design (e.g. INACSL)

< Quality assurance: criteria for good scenarios, typical sources of error and optimization approaches

• Students analyse different design templates for scenarios in simulation-based learning - including high fidelity, low fidelity and scenarios with standardized patients - compare their didactic suitability, critically reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and justify the selection of a suitable template for a self-developed simulation scenario.

• Students develop a scenario for a high- or low-fidelity simulation or simulation with standardized patients that is appropriate for the target group using the concept of constructive alignment and applicable simulation design standards. They justify the choice of simulation method on the basis of current research evidence and reflected practical experience

• Students provide differentiated, structured feedback on a simulation scenario developed by fellow students. They give well-founded reasons for their feedback with reference to didactic principles, simulation standards and their own practical experience.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Submission of a developed high or low fidelity scenario or scenario with SP (partial achievement 1), written feedback to peers on their created scenario (partial achievement 2)

> Conditions for a good simulation scenario (learning objectives, delivery, structure, script, media,...)

> Focus setting in a scenario, possibilities for achieving the learning objectives?

> AI in the scenario creation

> End/exit of a scenario

• Students independently develop new simulation scenarios based on current literature.

• Students reflect on the necessary scenario design based on the defined learning objectives.

• Students design simulation scenarios in such a way that learners can correctly apply current knowledge.

Lecture Exercise, support in creating a scenario after theoretical input

Continuous assessment: Submission of a simulation scenario

Understanding the basic concepts of ethics

> Definition and differences: ethics, morals, values, norms, law

> Reflecting on personal values and standards in a professional context

Understanding and applying ethical theories

> Overview of ethical theories: consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, principled ethics

> Basic assumptions, central questions and points of criticism of each theory

> Discussion of case studies on the application of ethical theories

Carry out ethical case analysis based on principled ethics

> Introduction to ethical principles according to Beauchamp and Childress

> Detailed treatment of the four principles: Autonomy, non-harm, care, justice

> Methodology of ethical case analysis: identification of ethical problems, evaluation of options, derivation of recommendations for action

> Analysis of realistic simulation scenarios from an ethical perspective (using Lego Serios Play®)

Reflecting on diversity in a sensitized way

> Concepts and dimensions of diversity: cultural, social, psychological, physical

> Influence of diversity on communication, teamwork and decision-making

> Reflection on own prejudices, stereotypes and blind spots

Designing simulation scenarios with diversity and equity in mind

> Principles of equity in the education and healthcare system

> Methods for inclusive scenario development

Applying ethical decision-making in practice

> Review the basics of informed choice, shared decision making and informed consent

> Application of ethical principles to decision-making processes in simulations

> Simulation for the practical implementation of participatory decision-making

> Reflection on challenges and ethical dilemmas in decision-making

Error culture in practice

> Error culture and patient safety: from blame to learning culture ("just culture")

> Dealing with own and observed errors, responsibility and transparency

> Speak-up culture in simulation and practice: ethical dimensions of courage, loyalty and team communication

• Students analyze central basic concepts of ethics (ethics, morals, law, values, norms), critically reflect on their interrelationships and evaluate their significance for professional decisions in the context of simulation-based teaching and practice.

• Students compare key ethical theories (consequentialist ethics, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, principled ethics), explain their basic assumptions and assess their relevance for complex ethical decision-making processes in simulations and realistic professional situations.

• Students structure ethical case analyses with the help of Beauchamp & Childress' ethics of principles, identify areas of tension and make well-founded decisions on autonomy, non-harm, care and justice; at the same time, they integrate ethical principles into processes such as informed consent, informed choice and shared decision making.

• Students plan and design simulation-based learning environments that are sensitive to diversity and equity, reflect on the influence of cultural, social, psychological and physical diversity on ethical and didactic decisions and promote an active speak-up culture in order to strengthen safety, inclusion and a sense of responsibility in the team.

Lecture (online format)

Practical exercise (in presence) of case analyses based on the principles of ethics using Lego Serios Play®

Continuous assessment: ethical case analysis (partial achievement 1), development of a case vignette for a simulation taking diversity and equity into account (partial achievement 2)

> Ethical principles (autonomy, non-harm, responsibility and justice) in the context of simulation research in healthcare

> Basic areas of impact of legal requirements in the context of simulation research in healthcare

> Requirements of scientific integrity for research ethics in the context of one's own Master's thesis project

> Requirements of the informed consent form

> Draft of a preliminary ethics proposal and associated documents and revision based on feedback

• Students know the central ethical principles (respect for autonomy, non-harm, beneficence and justice), reflect on them in the context of simulation research in healthcare and apply them.

• Students master the basic areas of impact of legal requirements (e.g. FOG, Medical Devices Ordinance, GDPR, AI Act) and research ethics guidelines (e.g. Declaration of Helsinki, Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research) in the context of simulation research in healthcare.

• Students identify and reflect on the requirements of scientific integrity with regard to research ethics in the context of their own Master's thesis project and implement these principles responsibly in the planning, implementation and documentation of their research.

• Students analyze the requirements, structure and purposes of informed consent forms - including target group-specific language, relevant content elements and data protection aspects - and apply them professionally.

• Students prepare a preliminary ethics application and the associated documents (e.g. informed consent form, survey instruments) for their own (or a potential) Master's thesis topic.

Asynchronous teaching videos, online group discussions, distance learning

Final exam: Submission of a preliminary ethics proposal and the associated documents on your own Master's thesis topic (or on a potential Master's thesis topic)

• Fundamentals of computational thinking for simulation (decomposition, patterns, abstraction, algorithms); artifacts: pseudocode, flowcharts, state models.
• HCI & UCD in the healthcare context: task analysis, personas/roles (e.g. nursing, medical technology, trainers), cognitive load, human factors.
• Prototyping: low/mid-fidelity (paper, wireframes, click prototype), design system basics, fault tolerance & safety in interactions.
• Usability evaluation: heuristic evaluation, think-aloud, moderation, metrics (SUS), evaluation & prioritization.
• Ethics, data protection & accessibility (incl. GDPR reference), documentation & reproducibility for simulation projects.

• Students analyse simulation-based problems in healthcare using computational thinking principles (decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithmization) and model testable solutions (e.g. pseudocode, flowcharts).

• Students design user-centered interaction sequences (task flows, storyboards) for simulation-related applications and prototypes of suitable user interfaces (low/mid-fidelity) for various roles in the healthcare sector.

• Students plan and carry out formative usability tests (e.g. think-aloud, heuristic evaluation), evaluate results in a structured manner (e.g. SUS, problem severity) and derive prioritized suggestions for improvement.

• Students evaluate interaction concepts with regard to patient/client safety, accessibility and ethics (including data protection) and document assumptions, design decisions and reproducibility in a comprehensible manner.

• The students transfer CT and HCI into a small, integrated scenario concept (e.g. simulation briefing interaction prototype) and argue its suitability in an interprofessional context.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Continuous assessment: Exercises, project work (prototype of an application, usability tests)

> Introduction to AI: definition and history of artificial intelligence (AI).

> AI basics: clarification of AI vocabulary and basic concepts (e.g. machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, supervised vs. unsupervised learning).

> AI in healthcare and simulation: overview of current and potential use cases (e.g. training, assessment, scenario generation, debriefing analysis).

> Computer science basics: Introduction to Python for AI applications (programming basics, libraries such as NumPy, Pandas, scikit-learn).

> Ethical and legal aspects: Principles of good scientific practice in dealing with AI, data protection (e.g. GDPR) and liability issues in the context of simulation and AI in healthcare.

• Students explain basic concepts and terms of artificial intelligence (AI) and their relevance for simulation-based applications in healthcare.

• Students describe how AI models work and how they can be used in simulation.

• Students apply basic Python programming techniques to understand and implement simple AI models.

• Students analyze ethical and data protection aspects in connection with the use of AI in simulation-based scenarios in the healthcare sector.

Lecture with interactive elements
Practical exercises with Python
Group work and discussions

Continuous assessment: Written (intermediate) examination(s) (multiple choice and/or open questions) and portfolio/short assignment.

1. basics of project management

• Definition of "project" and "project management" in contrast to processes/process management
• Characteristics of projects in education, health and research contexts
• Relevance of project management for simulation-based development projects

2. roles, tasks and competencies in project management

• Project management, project team, client: clarification of roles
• Technical, social and strategic skills in project management
• Responsibility and delegation in the team - also in an interprofessional setting

3. the 5 Ws of project management (Who? What? When? Why? How?)

• Application to the development of a research or education-related project
• Deriving concrete measures from the W questions

4. central project management building blocks

• Project goals (SMART criteria, goal pyramid)
• Project planning & time management:
  • Milestones
  • Gantt chart or timeline
  • Resource and effort planning
• Project structure & organization:
  • Work breakdown structure
  • Responsibility matrix
• Risk management in the project (identification, analysis, measures)
• Formulating and communicating project benefits
• Project reporting and documentation
• Evaluation of projects (formative and summative evaluation, criteria, methods)

5. tools and methods

• Eisenhower matrix for prioritizing tasks

7. from the idea to implementation - preparation of the Master's thesis project

• Deriving a project proposal from a research question
• Structure of a scientific project proposal
  • Title, background, objective, research question(s)
  • Methodology, schedule, resource planning
  • Risk assessment and ethical considerations
• Presentation and discussion of one's own project in the group

• Students independently analyze the differences between project and process management and evaluate their significance for educational and development projects in the context of simulation-based learning.

• Students apply central concepts and structural elements of pedagogical project management, develop a scientifically sound project proposal for their Master's thesis in the field of simulation-based learning and justify its structure on the basis of relevant standards and planning instruments.

• Students reflect in a differentiated way on the role of project management in the area of conflict between responsibility, leadership and cooperation. They critically examine aspects of error culture and error management in the project context and derive approaches for project management that promote learning.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Submission of a project application

• Basic concepts of empirical research methods
• Theoretical foundations and research approaches of quantitative and qualitative research
• Quantitative survey methods and questionnaire construction
• Research designs of quantitative research (experimental and non-experimental designs)
• Samples
• Statistical data analysis (overview)
• Directions of qualitative research (e.g. grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology)
• Qualitative survey and evaluation methods
• Quality criteria of quantitative and qualitative research
• Triangulation and mixed methods

• Students analyze different qualitative and quantitative research approaches, assign them to appropriate research questions based on theory and formulate them independently

• Students apply central principles of questionnaire construction and independently develop theory-based survey instruments for quantitative studies.

• Students differentiate between basic theoretical approaches to qualitative research and explain their epistemological and methodological foundations.

• Students apply selected qualitative survey and evaluation methods in a theory-based manner and reflect on their suitability for different research contexts.

Lecture with exercises and group discussions

Final exam: Written submission of a task, written final examination

Basics of descriptive statistics

< univariate summary of data in numerical, tabular and graphical form

< Tabular and graphical representation of bivariate correlations and calculation of corresponding correlation measures

Basics of inferential statistics

<Background of drawing conclusions from the sample to the population

<Prerequisites for the data/data quality

<Calculation of confidence intervals

Basics and implementation of statistical tests: 2-group comparison with dependent/independent samples

<Application of statistical software (Python) for processing data

<Statistical analysis in the software

Presentation of statistical results

• Students know the basics of descriptive statistics, calculate univariate statistical measures of position and dispersion and summarize data in numerical, tabular and simple graphical form.

• Students present bivariate correlations in tabular or graphical form, select a suitable correlation measure, calculate and interpret it.

• Students understand the basics of inferential statistics, estimate confidence intervals for proportions and expected values, select the appropriate statistical tests for correlations for the respective bivariate question, the research design, the distribution of characteristics and the scale level, carry them out and interpret them.

• Students use data and statistical software (Python) to independently investigate statistical questions, calculate descriptive statistics and carry out statistical tests.

Lecture and exercises

Continuous assessment: Written submission of a task (part 1), written final examination (part 2)

> Advanced AI models: In-depth study of specific models that are relevant for simulation (e.g. reinforcement learning, natural language processing or image recognition).

> Computational thinking and data management: Application of computational thinking to structure simulation problems for AI applications. Strategies for collecting, processing and storing simulation data.

> Project implementation in Python: Practical application of advanced Python libraries (e.g. scikit-learn or a simple introduction to deep learning frameworks) to create an AI prototype.

> Evaluation and validation: Systematic testing and validation of the functionality of AI applications, selection of suitable metrics to measure success in the healthcare context.

> Interaction and adaptation: Techniques for effective interaction and adaptation of AI systems in simulation-based teaching-learning scenarios.

• Students develop a simulation-based project using AI methods and document the development process.

• As part of a practical project, students implement selected AI solutions in Python, integrate interactions and document the underlying architecture in a scientifically sound manner.

• Students critically evaluate the results of the implemented AI solutions using suitable metrics and optimize the AI systems on the basis of well-founded analyses.

• Students reflect on the challenges and limitations of using AI in simulation-based scenarios and develop possible solutions.

Project-based learning
Practical exercises with Python
Peer feedback and discussions

Continuous assessment: Elaboration and presentation of a practical AI project (part 1) and reflection report on the methodology (part 2).

• XR basics & safety: terms/ecosystem, hardware/software basics, cyber sickness, hygiene & safety-by-design in the healthcare environment.
• Scenario design for XR: learning objectives, roles (nursing/medical/technical), interaction and error concepts, briefing/debriefing connection.
• Prototyping & implementation: Low/mid-fidelity to simple engine prototype (objects, interactions, states, simple UI/HUD).
• Evaluation: Planning/execution of usability and functional tests; metrics (e.g. SUS), evaluation & prioritization.
• Ethics, data protection, accessibility: GDPR reference, data minimization, documented design decisions & reproducibility.

• Students analyze and compare XR technologies (VR, AR, MR) and evaluate their possible applications, opportunities and risks for simulation-based teaching/learning scenarios in healthcare.

• Students design an XR scenario (use case, target group, interaction concept, security requirements) and model central processes/objects (e.g. interaction/state flows) as a basis for implementation.

• Students develop a small XR application (prototype) with basic interaction and document the architecture, assumptions and reproducibility in a comprehensible manner.

• Students reflect on aspects of patient/client safety, accessibility, ethics and data protection when using XR and argue appropriate protection and design measures for the healthcare context.

Short inputs; demonstrations of XR best practices; design sprints

Continuous assessment: Project work (prototype of an XR application, reflection report)

• Introduction to the "Journal Club" format
  • Aim and benefits of the Journal Club in academic practice
  • Critical reading and discussion of scientific literature as part of research-oriented teaching
  • Research and selection of scientific articles
• Overview of established journals in the field of health care simulation
  • Criteria for selecting relevant and high-quality publications
  • Use of scientific databases and tools (e.g. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science)
• Preparation and structuring of presentations
  • Structure of a scientific presentation (e.g. background, method, results, discussion)
  • Evaluation of the significance and relevance of the results
  • Reflection on methodological approaches and study designs
  • Conducting presentations in plenary sessions
• Presentation of the selected papers by the students
  • Moderation and structuring of discussions
  • Application of scientific argumentation strategies
• Discussion and critical analysis
  • Classification of the presented studies in the context of current research literature
  • Identification of strengths, weaknesses, bias and limitations
  • Deriving possible implications for research and practice in health care simulation
• Development of an overview of the research field
  • Systematic recording of relevant journals and research topics in the field of health care simulation
  • Developments, trends and research gaps in the field

• Students analyze current scientific publications in the field of health care simulation using advanced research, analysis and evaluation techniques and critically position the findings in a professional and interdisciplinary context.

• Students assess the scientific quality and relevance of publications using established criteria (e.g. research design, level of evidence, methodological rigor, degree of innovation), make well-founded assessments and argue these comprehensibly with regard to current developments in the simulation field.

• Students analyze selected papers in detail, identify key findings, strengths and limitations, synthesize the content into coherent lines of argumentation and discuss their conclusions in plenary sessions.

• In ad-hoc situations, students recognize the relevant content-related and methodological aspects of presented scientific work, filter out critical points and work these out precisely and in a manner appropriate to the target audience in the context of a professionally conducted discussion.

Exercise

Continuous assessment: Presentations of a paper in the context of the JC

Writing the Master's thesis

• Students work on a research question on a topic with novelty value and independently write a scientific empirical work.

• Students write the Master's thesis on their own responsibility and complete all formal steps required for graduation on time.

• Students develop their scientific argumentation stringently when writing their Master's thesis, structure it comprehensibly and document it in a technically correct manner.

Independent development of the topic with individual feedback as part of the Master's thesis supervision

Final exam

Analysis and reflection of your own research process

< Structuring the research process and planning the next work steps

< Structure, outline and scientific logical coherence

< Reflection on time management and work planning in the research and writing process

< Development of a suitable theoretical framework

< Strategies for overcoming writer's block and productive writing management

Application of scientific criteria & peer feedback

< Scientific justification of methodological approaches

< Reflection on the methodological approach and derivation of limitations

< Reflection on research ethics and principles of good scientific practice

< Giving and accepting feedback in a professional context

Presentation & scientific argumentation in discourse

< Presenting your own research project in a way that is appropriate for the target audience

< Arguing methodological, theoretical and ethical decisions

< representing your own position in a discursive manner in an interprofessional context

< Critical analysis of research approaches

• Students independently analyze and reflect on the status of their research process, justify methodological and theoretical decisions and derive well-founded next steps.

• Students apply scientific criteria to evaluate research projects, provide constructive peer feedback and integrate feedback into the further development of their work.

• Students present their research project in a manner appropriate to the target audience, argue methodological and ethical decisions and represent their position in interprofessional discourse.

Discussion, peer feedback, presentation

Continuous assessment: Presentation of the current status of the Master's thesis in plenary, written and oral peer feedback on colleagues' work

Independent preparation for the Master's examination, consisting of the examination parts:

- Presentation of the Master's thesis

- Justification of the thesis

- Examination discussion on cross-connections between the topic of the Master's thesis and the relevant subjects of the curriculum

- Examination discussion on other study-relevant content

• Students present the key findings of their Master's thesis in a technically sound manner and argue them to experts.

• Students establish links between their Master's thesis and relevant subject areas of the curriculum and reflect on them critically.

• In examination discussions, students answer complex technical questions in a structured manner and argue in a scientifically sound manner.

Independent development of the topic with individual feedback as part of the Master's thesis supervision. Commissioned Master's examination

Final exam