Using Simulation for Clinical Practice Hours in Nurse Practitioner Education in The United States: A Systematic Review

• The National Organization for Nurse Practitioner Faculty requires Nurse Practitioner (NP) students fulfill a minimum of 500 supervised direct patient care clinical hours.
• The aim of this systematic review was to investigate and to synthesize research completed in the last five years to report the current state of the science related to simulation in NP education.
• There is a lack of empirical evidence in the literature to support using simulation in lieu of direct patient care clinical hours in NP education.

SummaryObjectivesThe National Organization for Nurse Practitioner Faculty (NONPF) does not allow simulation to be used in lieu of traditional clinical hours. The NONPF cites a lack of empirical evidence related to learning outcomes with simulation as rationale for its stance. The purpose of this systematic review was to search, extract, appraise, and synthesize research related to the use of simulation in Nurse Practitioner (NP) education in order to answer the two following questions: 1) What research related to simulation in NP education has emerged in the literature between 2010 and April 2015?, and 2) Of the research studies that have emerged, what level of Kirkpatrick's Training Evaluation Model (1994) is evaluated?DesignThis review was reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Data SourcesA literature search was completed in PubMed and CINAHL using a combination of medical subject headings, or Mesh terms, as well as keywords to retrieve non-indexed citations.Review MethodsThe inclusion criteria for this review were broad in order to disseminate information on future research needed. The review considered studies related to NP education that included any form of simulation intervention, e.g. role-playing and standardized patients. The review considered studies that described original research, but no other design restrictions were imposed. The review was limited to studies published in the English language.ResultsThe database search strategy yielded 198 citations. These results were narrowed down to 15 studies based on identified inclusion criteria.ConclusionsThere is a lack of empirical evidence in the literature to support using simulation in lieu of direct patient care clinical hours in NP education. The evidence in this systematic review affirms NONPF's statement. Five years after the inception of NONPF's position statement, research to support learning outcomes with simulation in nurse practitioner education remains lacking. There is a need to produce rigorous scientific studies in the future in order to provide quantitative support to allow simulation to be counted as clinical hours in NP programs.