Responses to open-ended questions (postsimulation)
| In your opinion, what were the strengths of this exercise? |
|---|
| It was a great simulation that provided insight into the flow of a clinical laboratory and demonstrated how multiple tests can be performed from patient samples. I think it also gave a many of us a better appreciation of specimen processing |
| It was fun and let me actively learn instead of just reading or hearing about it |
| It was really helpful in understanding how a lab communicates and how workflow runs on a day to day basis in the lab. |
| Being able to simulate a lab was helpful for teaching us sample processing as well as learning communication strategies with our peers. I think it was a good simulation to have before running through clinicals at an actual lab |
| The ability to work as a team and go through the period of waiting for samples while simultaneously running quality control helped to better prepare us for the real lab setting. |
| Number of assays and stats along with group work |
| This exercise was a really great example of work flow and how different benches work together in the lab. |
| It was too short |
| Allows for us to work together toward a common result |
| Engaging and fun |
| It included very real factors of working in a clinical lab like having to work with people in various roles, having to communicate information to providers, evaluating samples and analyzing them within a given time. |
| Well organized, really fun, mimicked a real lab very nicely. |
| Team work and the procedures used to execute each test |
| I thought this exercise was AWESOME! I had so much fun getting to work with my peers in a professional sense, and really enjoyed the experience! |
| In your opinion, how could this exercise be improved? |
| I think it would be a neat idea to have a couple of people be able to “work” as generalists and be able to bounce between benches if need be. I think that would limit how many people are idle at a given moment and would add another level of complexity and appreciation |
| A few more pts for the tests that take less time so one group doesn’t feel like everyone is waiting on them |
| I feel like I didn’t get to see as much of the specimen processing side as I would’ve hoped for. If I were to redo it, I think the specimen processing bench would be most beneficial for learning purposes. |
| It would be nice to have a back button on here, I think I missed a question because I got confused. Other than that, everything seemed very well organized. It would have been helpful to have some sort of sheet for keeping track of turn around times as a supervisor though. |
| Maybe more spread out samples/more samples for groups with quicker tests. The ALT took a bit longer, but other groups finished quite quickly. It may be beneficial to add a few more tests/patients (if possible of course) to each bench for the exercise. |
| Adding more samples for some benches so that everyone isn’t waiting on one bench to be done and all finish around the same time. |
| Get rid of ALT |
| More samples with problems such as hemolysis or critical values |
| Too much downtime after completing assays |
| Include more samples for benches whose tests run faster and less for the ALT bench. Maybe allow students to cycle through different roles so everyone can experience specimen processing or being a lead MLS. |
| More samples |
| If a shorter assay could replace ALT, I think that would help with down time throughout other benches. |