Just-in-Time In Situ Simulation Training as a Preparedness Measure for the Perioperative Care of COVID-19 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Routine workflows were redesigned during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic to standardize perioperative management of patients and minimize the risk of viral exposure and transmission to staff members. Just-in-time (JIT), in situ simulation training was adopted to implement urgent change, the value of which in a public health crisis has not previously been explored. METHODS: Implementation of workflow changes in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic was accomplished through JIT, in situ simulation training, delivered over a period of 3 weeks to participants from anesthesia, nursing, and surgery, within our healthcare network. The perceived value of this training method was assessed using a postsimulation training survey, composed of Likert scale assessments and free-text responses. The impact on change in practice was assessed by measuring compliance with new COVID-19 workflows for cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 managed in the operating room, between March and August 2020. RESULTS: Postsimulation survey responses collected from 110 of 428 participants (25.7%) demonstrated significant positive shifts along the Likert scale on perceived knowledge of new workflow processes, comfort in adopting them in practice and probability that training would have an impact on future practice (all Ps < 0.001). Free-text responses reflected appreciation for the training being timely, hands-on, and interprofessional. Compliance with new COVID workflows protocols in practice was 95% (121 of 127 cases) and was associated with lower than expected healthcare worker test positive rates (<1%) within the network during this same period. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support JIT, in situ simulation training as a preparedness measure for the perioperative care of COVID-19 patients and demonstrate the value of this approach during public health crises.

Defining and Addressing Anesthesiology Needs in Simulation-based Medical Education.

Background: This study's primary aim was to determine how training programs use simulation-based medical education (SBME), because SBME is linked to superior clinical performance. Methods: An anonymous 10-question survey was distributed to anesthesiology residency program directors across the United States. The survey aimed to assess where and how SBME takes place, which resources are available, frequency of and barriers to its use, and perceived utility of a dedicated departmental education laboratory. Results: The survey response rate was 30.4% (45/148). SBME typically occurred at shared on-campus laboratories, with residents typically participating in SBME 1 to 4 times per year. Frequently practiced skills included airway management, trauma scenarios, nontechnical skills, and ultrasound techniques (all ≥ 77.8%). Frequently cited logistical barriers to simulation laboratory use included COVID-19 precautions (75.6%), scheduling (57.8%), and lack of trainers (48.9%). Several respondents also acknowledged financial barriers. Most respondents believed a dedicated departmental education laboratory would be a useful or very useful resource (77.8%). Conclusion: SBME is a widely incorporated activity but may be impeded by barriers that our survey helped identify. Barriers can be addressed by departmental education laboratories. We discuss how such laboratories increase capabilities to support structured SBME events and how costs can be offset. Other academic departments may also benefit from establishing such laboratories.

Evaluating the Use of an Aerosol Box During Simulated Intubations.

To evaluate the use of an aerosol box during video laryngoscopy intubation, we conducted a two-phase simulation-based study to assess if there were significant differences in time needed to safely intubate a patient with an aerosol box in place, as well as assess changes in laryngoscopists' hand motions as determined by changes in accelerometry. 20 anesthesiology providers from our institution participated in the first phase assessing the time to intubation. Use of the aerosol box led to statistically significant increases in intubation times (Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test p < 0.001, z-score = 3.921), with the calculated Pearson's correlation coefficient (r = 0.877) indicating a large effect size. An 8.5 - 11.5 second difference in median intubation times was maintained between corresponding attempts with versus without the aerosol box. 15 participants completed an optional post-assessment survey, with 10 of 15 respondents firmly stating they would not use the box in clinical practice. The hand accelerometry assessment included five anesthesiology providers from our institution. This revealed a statistically significant increase in trials with aerosol boxes for the left hand's general accelerometry with a medium effect size (p = 0.031; z = -1.873; r = -0.484), as well as for the right hand's general accelerometry with a large effect size (p < 0.001; z = -3.351; r = -0.865). Although the aerosol box is an interesting concept, its use is associated with increased time to intubation and a change in ergonomics, which may increase risk during airway management and represents a concern for patient safety.