Ethical Dilemmas in Medical Education: The Misplaced Priority of High-Fidelity Simulators in Health care Institutions
Abstract
Simulation-based learning is an essential tool in modern medical education, providing students with a safe environment to develop clinical skills. However, the increasing focus on high-fidelity simulators, particularly in resource-constrained Government run teaching institutions, raises ethical and practical concerns. These advanced simulators, while beneficial in specialized fields, are often costly, difficult to maintain, and impractical for institutions with large student populations. The pressure exerted by vendors and the desire for institutional prestige can lead to misguided procurement decisions that prioritize expensive technology over more effective, low-cost alternatives. A balanced approach that integrates low-cost simulators into the curriculum offers a more practical solution, ensuring hands-on training for all students. This review calls for ethical decision-making in simulator acquisition, emphasizing the need to focus on student learning outcomes rather than institutional status symbols. Transparent procurement processes and resource allocation are crucial for maximizing educational value while maintaining integrity in medical training.
References
Vangone I, Arrigoni C, Magon A, Conte G, Russo S, Belloni S, Stievano A, Alfes CM, Caruso R. The efficacy of
high-fidelity simulation on knowledge and performance in undergraduate nursing students: An umbrella review
of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today. 2024 Aug 1;139:106231.[Google Scholar] .
Massoth C, Röder H, Ohlenburg H, Hessler M, Zarbock A, Pöpping DM, Wenk M. High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC medical education. 2019 Jan 21;19(1):29.[Google Scholar].
Roberts F, Cooper K. Effectiveness of high fidelity simulation versus low fidelity simulation on practical/clinical skill development in pre-registration physio therapy students: a systematic review. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2019 Jun 1;17(6):1229-55.[Google Scholar]