Table 1.

Feedback to questions 1–3 on the importance, utility and suggested methods for gathering evidence for the standards

		Pilot sites and online free-text responses and comments
Q1	Do you agree that standards are important for the effective design and delivery of SBE?	Significant majority agreed or strongly agreed. It was felt that standards would help with design and development of new courses and facilities and ensure that SBE is delivered to a high and consistent standard. Some anticipated that it could act as a leverage to secure appropriate and adequate resources from their organisations. There were concerns around applying the standards to all types of facility and a need for more clarity around trust versus HEI, large versus small, permanent full-time staff versus secondary role, high versus low-fidelity equipment, in situ versus dedicated facility. Concerns about terminology; standards/guidance/recommendations and whether they are achievable for all and the divide between aspirational and reality with concern of consequences for centres and their staff not meeting the standards.
Q2	Do you agree with the overall outlay and section headings in the standards document?	Significant majority agreed with the construction of the document. The main criticism was the length and repetition with suggestions that some standards could be combined, others were not SBE specific and were academic teaching standards. It was suggested to separate the standards from guidance/recommendation to ensure clarity for accreditation. A need for consistent terminology and abbreviations to be defined and reduction in ambiguity Typo and grammatical errors were identified. A need for identification of other support personnel who were not faculty or technicians, that is, administration roles
Q3	Thoughts on how the evidence could be collected and/or validated, that is, audit, online, peer or self-evaluation, face-to-face	All in agreement that governance will be essential. Most endorsed online, self-evaluation with peer/ASPiH reviewing. Emphasis that this should be a simple process with example documentation to encourage rather than deter participants. Various ideas on how the accreditation process could work in practice highlighting a degree of flexibility needed to suit the variation in activity and resources. Some concern around the cost of accreditation.

ASPiH, Association for Simulated Practice in Healthcare; HEI, higher education institution; SBE, simulation-based education.