Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Taxonomy Guide for Surgical Simulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

The lack of a common language within surgical simulation can not only create confusion but can also impede efforts to coherently describe data, techniques, assessment, and research. The goal of this chapter is to present a comprehensive taxonomy of terms (Fig. 1) used within surgical simulation to guide those embarking on new simulation endeavors and to serve as a reference for those already in the trenches. Although best efforts were made to provide the most definitive description of each term, we do acknowledge that many terms referenced are in various stages of development. We provide references for further reading to guide the reader in additional understanding of each concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and Joint Commission Accreditation Hospital. Comprehensive accreditation manual for hospitals: the official handbook 2008; Joint Commission Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, Flynn TC. The next GME accreditation system—rationale and benefits. New Engl J Med. 2010;366:1051–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly CR. What is adaptive training? Human Fac. 1969;11:547–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knowles MS. Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hurtz GM, Hertz NR. How many raters should be used for establishing cutoff scores with the Angoff method? A generalizability theory study. Educ Psychol Meas. 1999;59:885–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaufman DM, Mann KV, Muijtjens AM, van der Vleuten CP. A comparison of standard-setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75:267–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Angelo T, Cross KP. Classroom assessment techniques a handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vera AM, Russo MA, Mohsin A, Tsuda S. Augmented reality telementoring (ART) platform: a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a new surgical education technology. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3467–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Botden SMBI, de Hingh IHJT, Jakimowicz JJ. Suturing training in augmented reality: gaining proficiency in suturing skills faster. Surg Endosc. 2009;9:2131–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP. Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Patel V, Aggarwal R, Cohen D, Taylor D, Darzi A. Implementation of an interactive virtual-world simulation for structured surgeon assessment of clinical scenarios. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:270–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:1010–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scheuneman J. A method of assessing bias in test items. J Educ Measur. 1979;16:143–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans Green; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Antonoff MB, Swanson JA, Green CA, Mann BD, Maddaus MA, D’Cunha J. The significant impact of a competency-based preparatory course for senior medical students entering surgical residency. Acad Med. 2012;87:308–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Malangoni MA. Maintenance of certification. Adv Surg. 2016;50:105–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Brit J Surg. 1997;84:273–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Faulkner H, Regehr G, Martin J, Reznick R. Validation of an objective structured assessment of technical skill for surgical residents. Acad Med. 1996;71(12):1363–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP. Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2015;262:205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stefanidis D, Anderson-Montoya B, Higgins RV, Pimentel ME, Rowland P, Scarborough MO, Higgins D. Developing a coaching mechanism for practicing surgeons. Surg. 2016;160:536–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Sci. 1988;12:257–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sweller J, Van Merriënboer JG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1988;10:251–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev. 2010;22:123–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beth Crandall B, Klein GA, Hoffman RR. Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Andrade C. Examination of participant flow in the CONSORT diagram can improve the understanding of the generalizability of study results. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(11):e1469–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. CONSORT. Accessed from http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/flow-diagram on 22 Sept 2016.

  28. Englander R, Cameron T, Ballard AJ, Dodge J, Bull J, Aschenbrener CA. Toward a common taxonomy of competency domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88:1088–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, Harris P, Glasgow NJ, Campbell C, Dath D, Harden RM. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins RS, Bridges J, Burke JM, O’Donnell MA, Cohen NM, Wilkes SB. Implementing the ACGME general competencies in a cardiothoracic surgery residency program using 360-degree feedback. Annals Thorac Surg. 2010;77:12–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin DT, Park J, Liebert CA, Lau JN. Validity evidence for surgical improvement of clinical knowledge ops: a novel gaming platform to assess surgical decision making. Am J Surg. 2015;209:79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cassel CK, Holmboe ES. Credentialing and public accountability: a central role for board certification. JAMA. 2006;295:939–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaplan LJ, Shaw AD. Standards for education and credentialing in critical care medicine. JAMA. 2011;305:296–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. France DJ, Leming-Lee S, Jackson T, Feistritzer NR, Higgins MS. An observational analysis of surgical team compliance with perioperative safety practices after crew resource management training. Am J Surg. 2008;195:546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hughes KM, Benenson RS, Krichten AE, Clancy KD, Ryan JP, Hammond C. A crew resource management program tailored to trauma resuscitation improves team behavior and communication. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:545–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Salas E, Wilson KA, Burke CS, et al. Does crew resource management work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Hum Factors. 2006;48:392–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. SSH. 2007;2(2):115–25.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 2003;100:363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Crochet P, Aggarwal R, Dubb SS, Ziprin P, Rajaretnam N, Grantcharov T, Ericsson KA, Darzi A. Deliberate practice on a virtual reality laparoscopic simulator enhances the quality of surgical technical skills. Annals Surg. 2011;253:1216–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kwon YH, Kwon JW, Lee MH. Effectiveness of motor sequential learning according to practice schedules in healthy adults; distributed practice versus massed practice. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:769–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi W, Dyens O, Schijven MP, Chan T, Dev P, Fellander-Tsai L, Ferland M, Kato P, Lajoie S, Lau JN, Mancini M, Montonaro M, Pineau J, Aggarwal R. Engagement and learning through simulation-based initiatives: recommendations of the Simnovate pervasive learning domain group. Submitted to Academic Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2009;4:193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development: Prentice Hall; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Burns CL. Using debriefing and feedback in simulation to improve participant performance: an educator’s perspective. Int J Med Educ. 2015;6:118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Voyer S, Hatala R. Debriefing and feedback: two sides of the same coin? Simul Healthc. 2015;10:67–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Taras M. Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. Brit J Educ Studies. 2005;53:466–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shepard LA. Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educ Lead. 2005;63:66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Boston C. The concept of formative assessment. ERIC Digest. 2002;8:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Deterding S. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions. 2012;19:14–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kerfoot BP, Kissane N. The use of gamification to boost residents’ engagement in simulation training. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1208–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dierdorff EC, Surface EA, Brown KG. Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:1181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gardner AK, Russo MA, Jabbour II, Kosemund M, Scott DJ. Frame-of-reference training for simulation-based intraoperative communication assessment. Am J Surg. 2016;212:548–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Okamura AM. Haptic feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:102–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Dudrick SJ, Duffy AJ. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res. 2009;156:312–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Epstein R. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Norcini JJ, McKinley DW. Assessment methods in medical education. Teach Teach Educ. 2007;23:239–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pizzi L, Goldfarb NI, Nash DB. Procedures for obtaining informed consent. [Accessed March 25 2009]; Making healthcare safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices, evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 43. 2001 (Chapter 48). Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/.

  58. The American Psychological Association, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, 2016. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Gardner AK, Ahmed RA, George RL, Frey J. In situ simulation to assess workplace attitudes and effectiveness in a new facility. Simul Healthc. 2013;6:351–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Steinemann S, Berg B, Skinner A, DiTulio A, Anzelon K, Terada K, Oliver C, Ho HC, Speck C. In situ, multidisciplinary simulation-based teamwork training improves early trauma care. J Surg Educ. 2011;68:472–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Patterson MD, Geis GL, Falcone GA, LeMaster T, Wears RL. In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Stryjewski TP, Kalish BT, Silverman B, Lehmann LS. The impact of institutional review boards (IRBs) on clinical innovation: a survey of investigators and IRB members. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10:481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kamdar G, Kessler DO, Tilt L, Srivastava G, Khanna K, Chang TP, Balmer D, Auerbach M. Qualitative evaluation of just-in-time simulation-based learning. The learner’s perspective. Sim Healthc. 2013;8:43–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT. Development for medical education: a six-step approach. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  65. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a health professions networks, nursing, and midwifery, human resources for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Anderson DK. How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgment? Acad Med. 2012;87:934–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pugh CM, DaRosa DA, Santacaterina S, Clark RE. Faculty evaluation of simulation-based modules for assessment of intraoperative decision making. Surgery. 2011;149:534–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Madani A, Watanabe Y, Bilgic E, Pucher PH, Vassiliou MC, Aggarwal R, et al. Measuring intraoperative decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validity evidence for a novel interactive web-based assessment tool. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5091-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluation of training. In: Craig RL, editor. Training and development handbook: a guide to human resource development. New York: McGraw Hill; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2004;27:341–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. https://www.mededportal.org/.

  72. Livingston JA. Metacognition: an overview. 2003. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf.

  73. Dominguez CO. Expertise and metacognition in laparoscopic surgery: a field study. Human Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2001;45:1298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pontefract D. Flat army: creating a connected and engaged organization. New Jersey: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Dong Y, Suri HS, Cook DA, Kashani KB, Mullon JJ, Enders FT, Rubin O, Dunn WF. Simulation-based objective assessment discerns clinical proficiency in central line placement: a construct validation. Chest. 2010;137:1050–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Li X, Wang J, Ferguson MK. Competence versus mastery: the time course for developing proficiency in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1150–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wayne DB, Butter J, Siddall VJ, Fudala MJ, Wade LD, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC. Mastery learning of advanced cardiac life support skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;21:251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Edmondson AC. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Nelson-McMillan KL, Bradshaw J, Diener-West M, Perretta JS, Shilkofski NA. Pediatric resident resuscitation skills improve after ‘rapid cycle deliberate practice’ training. Resuscitation. 2014;85:945–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. West MD, Daniel DG, Opler M, Wise-Rankovic A, Kalali A. Consensus recommendations on rater training and certification. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2014;11:10–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Gas BL, Buckarma EH, Mohan M, Pandian TK, Farley DR. Objective assessment of general surgery residents followed by remediation. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Hauer KE, Ciccone A, Henzel TR, Katsufrakis P, Miller SH, Norcross WA, Papadakis MA, Irby DM. Remediation of the deficiencies of physicians across the continuum from medical school to practice: a thematic review of the literature. Acad Med. 2009;84:1822–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. AHRQ https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primers/primer/10.

  86. Cannon-Bowers JA, Bowers C, Procci K. Optimizing learning in surgical simulations: guidelines from the science of learning and human performance. Surg Clin N Am. 2010;90:583–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Mouaheb H, Fahli A, Moussetad M, Eljamali S. The serious game: what educational benefits? Procedia Social Behav Sci. 2012;46:5502–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. TeamSTEPPS Fundamentals Course: Module 5. Situation Monitoring. Content last reviewed March 2014. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/instructor/fundamentals/module5/igsitmonitor.html.

  89. Perruchet P. The effect of spaced practice on explicit and implicit memory. Brit J Psychol. 1989;80:113–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse SA, Tannenbaum SI. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezy RW, Salas E, editors. Teams: their training and performance. Norwood: Ablex; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Parmelee D, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34:e275–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89:678–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Mayer CM, Cluff L, Win WT, Willis TS, Stafford RE, et al. Evaluating efforts to optimize TeamSTEPPS implementation in surgical and pediatric intensive care units. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37:365–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Meier AH, Boehler ML, McDowell CM, Schwind C, Markwell S, Roberts NK, Sanfey H. A surgical simulation curriculum for senior medical students based on TeamSTEPPS. Arch Surg. 2012;147:761–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Goodwin GF. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: an update of the teamwork competencies. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Gardner AK, Hull L. The science and training of expert operating room teams. In: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 143–51.

    Google Scholar 

  97. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ. 2012;46:636–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Perkins DN, Salomon G. Transfer of learning. Int Encycl Educ. 1992;2:6452–7.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A. Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;246:771–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, Smith DS, Satava RM. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241:364–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Brit J Surg. 2004;91:146–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004;38:1095–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Mr. Todd Gardner for his assistance with the creation of Fig. 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Professions, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Aimee Gardner

  2. Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    James N. Lau

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sara Kim

Authors
  1. Aimee Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James N. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aimee Gardner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    James R. Korndorffer Jr.

  3. Executive Director WISH and CREST, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Robert Sweet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gardner, A., Lau, J.N., Kim, S. (2019). A Taxonomy Guide for Surgical Simulation. In: Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer Jr., J., Sweet, R. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98275-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98276-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation