Assessing the performance and satisfaction of medical residents utilizing standardized patient versus mannequin-simulated training.

BACKGROUND: Conducting simulations of rapidly decompensating patients are a key part of internal medicine (IM) residency training. Traditionally, mannequins have been the simulation tool used in these scenarios. OBJECTIVE: To compare IM residents' performance and assess realism in specific-simulated decompensating patient scenarios using standardized patients (SPs) as compared to mannequin. METHODS: Nineteen IM residents were randomized to undergo simulations using either a mannequin or an SP. Each resident in the two groups underwent four different simulation scenarios (calcium channel blocker overdose, severe sepsis, severe asthma exacerbation, and acute bacterial meningitis). Residents completed pretest and post-test evaluations as well as a questionnaire to assess the reality perception (realism score). RESULTS: Nine residents completed mannequin-based scenarios, whereas 10 completed SP-based scenarios. Improvement in the post-test scores was seen in both groups. However, there were significantly higher post-test scores achieved with SP simulations in three out of the four scenarios (P=0.01). When compared with the mannequin group, the SP simulation group showed a significantly higher average realism score (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Applying SP-based specific-simulation scenarios in IM residency training may result in better performance and a higher sense of a realistic experience by medical residents.

Central Line Proficiency Test Outcomes after Simulation Training versus Traditional Training to Competence.

RATIONALE: Studies have shown the importance of simulation-based training on the outcomes of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion by trainees. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of internal medicine trainees who underwent standardized simulation training of CVC insertion with that of internal medicine trainees who had traditional CVC training and were already deemed competent to perform the procedure during a proficiency evaluation using a training mannequin. METHODS: Trainees who perform CVC insertion were enrolled in the institutional Central Line Workshop, which includes both an online and an experiential simulation component. The training is followed by a certification station proficiency assessment. Residents and fellows previously certified competent to perform CVC placement without supervision completed the online module, but they could opt out of the experiential component and proceed directly to the evaluation. RESULTS: Forty-eight trainees participated in the study. Twenty-one (44%), 15 (31%), 6 (13%), 1 (2%), 2 (4%), and 3 (6%) were in postgraduate year 1 (PGY1), PGY2, PGY3, PGY4, PGY5, and PGY6, respectively. Twenty-nine completed the hands-on instruction, 28 (97%) of whom successfully passed the simulation-based assessment on their first attempt. Nineteen trainees previously credentialed to perform CVC placement without supervision opted out of the simulation-based experiential training. Of these, five (26%) failed in their first attempt (P = 0.02 vs. trainees who completed the simulation training). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized simulation-based training can improve CVC insertion proficiency, even among trainees with previous experience sufficient to have been deemed competent in the procedure. Improved performance at simulation-based testing may translate to improved outcomes of CVC placement by trainees.