Abstract：
Health care distance simulation (HCDS) replicates professional encounters through an immersive experience overseen by experts and in which technological infrastructure enriches the learning activity. As HCDS has gained traction, so has the movement to provide inclusive and accessible simulation experiences for all participants. However, established guidelines for best practices in HCDS regarding justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) are lacking. This study aimed to generate consensus statements on JEDI principles in synchronous HCDS education using the nominal group technique (NGT).
Professionals with experience in HCDS education were invited to generate, record, discuss, and vote on ideas that they considered best practices for JEDI. This process was followed by a thematic analysis of the NGT discussion to provide a deeper understanding of the final consensus statements. An independent group of HCDS educators individually reviewed and recorded their agreement or disagreement with the consensus statements created by the NGT process.
Eleven independent experts agreed on 6 key practices for JEDI in HCDS. Educators need to (1) be aware of JEDI principles, (2) be able to define and differentiate JEDI, (3) model JEDI in their environment, (4) have expertise and comfort facilitating conversations and debriefing around JEDI issues, (5) be advocates within their organizations to ensure equitable educational experiences, and (6) achieve JEDI without compromising educational objectives. Experts were divided on the approach to technology to ensure equitable learning experiences: some believed that the most basic technology accessible to all learners should be used, and some believed that the technology used should be determined by the competency of the students or faculty.
Structural and institutional barriers in HCDS education persist despite agreement on key JEDI practices. Conclusive research is needed to guide the optimal policy in HCDS toward creating equitable learning experiences while bridging the digital divide.
Professionals with experience in HCDS education were invited to generate, record, discuss, and vote on ideas that they considered best practices for JEDI. This process was followed by a thematic analysis of the NGT discussion to provide a deeper understanding of the final consensus statements. An independent group of HCDS educators individually reviewed and recorded their agreement or disagreement with the consensus statements created by the NGT process.
Eleven independent experts agreed on 6 key practices for JEDI in HCDS. Educators need to (1) be aware of JEDI principles, (2) be able to define and differentiate JEDI, (3) model JEDI in their environment, (4) have expertise and comfort facilitating conversations and debriefing around JEDI issues, (5) be advocates within their organizations to ensure equitable educational experiences, and (6) achieve JEDI without compromising educational objectives. Experts were divided on the approach to technology to ensure equitable learning experiences: some believed that the most basic technology accessible to all learners should be used, and some believed that the technology used should be determined by the competency of the students or faculty.
Structural and institutional barriers in HCDS education persist despite agreement on key JEDI practices. Conclusive research is needed to guide the optimal policy in HCDS toward creating equitable learning experiences while bridging the digital divide.
摘要：
目标：医疗远程模拟（HCDS）通过专家监督的沉浸式体验复制专业遭遇，技术基础设施丰富了学习活动。随着HCDS获得牵引力，为所有参与者提供包容性和可访问的模拟体验的运动也是如此。然而,为HCDS关于司法的最佳做法制定了指导方针，股本，多样性,缺乏包容性（JEDI）。本研究旨在使用名义组技术（NGT）在同步HCDS教育中对JEDI原则产生共识。
方法：邀请具有HCDS教育经验的专业人士，记录,讨论,并对他们认为是JEDI最佳实践的想法进行投票。在此过程之后，对NGT讨论进行了主题分析，以更深入地了解最终共识声明。一组独立的HCDS教育者单独审查并记录了他们对NGT过程中产生的共识声明的同意或不同意。
结果：11位独立专家就JEDI在HCDS中的6项关键实践达成一致。教育工作者需要（1）了解JEDI原则，(2)能够定义和区分JEDI，（3）模型JEDI在他们的环境中，（4）具有专业知识和舒适性，有助于围绕JEDI问题进行对话和汇报，（5）在其组织内倡导确保公平的教育经验，(6)在不损害教育目标的情况下实现JEDI。专家们对确保公平学习经验的技术方法存在分歧:一些人认为，应该使用所有学习者都能获得的最基本的技术，有些人认为使用的技术应该由学生或教师的能力决定。
结论：尽管就关键的JEDI实践达成了一致，但HCDS教育中的结构和制度障碍仍然存在。需要进行结论性研究，以指导HCDS的最佳政策，以创造公平的学习体验，同时弥合数字鸿沟。
方法：邀请具有HCDS教育经验的专业人士，记录,讨论,并对他们认为是JEDI最佳实践的想法进行投票。在此过程之后，对NGT讨论进行了主题分析，以更深入地了解最终共识声明。一组独立的HCDS教育者单独审查并记录了他们对NGT过程中产生的共识声明的同意或不同意。
结果：11位独立专家就JEDI在HCDS中的6项关键实践达成一致。教育工作者需要（1）了解JEDI原则，(2)能够定义和区分JEDI，（3）模型JEDI在他们的环境中，（4）具有专业知识和舒适性，有助于围绕JEDI问题进行对话和汇报，（5）在其组织内倡导确保公平的教育经验，(6)在不损害教育目标的情况下实现JEDI。专家们对确保公平学习经验的技术方法存在分歧:一些人认为，应该使用所有学习者都能获得的最基本的技术，有些人认为使用的技术应该由学生或教师的能力决定。
结论：尽管就关键的JEDI实践达成了一致，但HCDS教育中的结构和制度障碍仍然存在。需要进行结论性研究，以指导HCDS的最佳政策，以创造公平的学习体验，同时弥合数字鸿沟。
