Simulation-based learning and assessment in intensive care: A scoping review of current practice

Introduction Simulation-based education (SBE) is integral to healthcare training, but its use for learning and assessment in health professionals working in adult intensive care units (ICU) has not been comprehensively examined, leaving gaps in understanding design, delivery, and impact. SBE holds value in ICU where care is complex and often involves high-acuity, low-occurrence procedures by providing a safe environment for clinical staff to develop and maintain proficiency in skills, build teamwork and communication, and support patient safety. Objectives To explore how simulation is used for learning and assessment in intensive care settings, identify key themes and gaps, and provide insights to guide future educational practice and research. Methods A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. With searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest Central, Education Resources Information Center, and Google Scholar for articles published in 2019 onward. Eligible studies were primary research involving ICU health professionals using simulation for learning or assessment. Results The search returned 9666 results, with 72 deemed suitable for inclusion. Most were from the United States of America (30 studies, 41.7%), and were quantitative in nature (53 studies, 73.6%). Simulations were mostly conducted to facilitate technical skills training (41 studies, 56.9%), and scenarios were primarily focused on about circulation and hemodynamics (21 studies, 29.1%) and respiratory (20 studies, 27.8%) scenarios or topics. Nursing and medical professionals were the predominant attendees and facilitators of the simulations. Conclusions Simulation‑based education is widely used for learning and, less commonly, assessment in adult ICU settings. However, inconsistent reporting of facilitator preparation, limited multidisciplinary team involvement, and variable methodological approaches constrain interpretation of its impact. Future research should address these gaps through improved transparency in reporting, greater inclusion of the full ICU multidisciplinary team, and use of established frameworks and validated outcome measures.