ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: This systematic review was performed to assess the effectiveness of in situ simulation education. We searched databases including MEDLINE and Embase for studies comparing in situ simulation with other educational approaches. Two reviewers screened articles and extracted information. Sixty-two articles met inclusion criteria, of which 24 were synthesized quantitatively using random effects meta-analysis. When compared with current educational practices alone, the addition of in situ simulation to these practices was associated with small improvements in clinical outcomes, including mortality [odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55 to 0.78], care metrics (standardized mean difference, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.21), and nontechnical skills (standardized mean difference, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.05). Comparisons between in situ and traditional simulation showed mixed learner preference and knowledge improvement between groups, while technical skills showed improvement attributable to in situ simulation. In summary, available evidence suggests that adding in situ simulation to current educational practices may improve patient mortality and morbidity.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Simulation Training , Humans , Patient CareABSTRACT
Background: Simulationists lack standard terms to describe new practices accommodating pandemic restrictions. A standard language around these new simulation practices allows ease of communication among simulationists in various settings. Methods: We explored consensus terminology for simulation accommodating geographic separation of participants, facilitators or equipment. We used an iterative process with participants of two simulation conferences, with small groups and survey ranking. Results: Small groups (n = 121) and survey ranking (n = 54) were used with distance, remote, and telesimulation as leading terms. Each was favored by a third of the participants without consensus. Conclusion: This research has deepened our understanding of how simulationists interpret this terminology, including the derived themes: (1) physical distance/separation, (2) overarching nature of the term and (3) implications from existing terms. We further deepen the conceptual discussion on healthcare simulation aligned with the search of the terminologies. We propose there are nuances that prevent an early consensus recommendation. A taxonomy of descriptors specifying the conduct of distance, remote and telesimulation is preferred.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare resuscitation performance on simulated in-hospital cardiac arrests after traditional American Heart Association (AHA) Healthcare Provider Basic Life Support course (TradBLS) versus revised course including in-hospital skills (HospBLS). DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. SETTING: Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center. SUBJECTS: One hundred twenty-two first year medical students were divided into fifty-nine teams. INTERVENTION: HospBLS course of identical length, containing additional content contextual to hospital environments, taught utilizing Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure during simulated cardiac arrest scenarios was chest compression fraction (CCF) and secondary outcome measures included metrics of high quality resuscitation. MAIN RESULTS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [69% (65-74) vs. 58% (53-62), p<0.001] and were faster than TradBLS at initiating compressions: [median (IQR): 9s (7-12) vs. 22s (17.5-30.5), p<0.001]. In-hospital cardiac arrest HospBLS teams had larger CCF: [73% (68-75) vs. 50% (43-54), p<0.001] and were faster to initiate compressions: [10s (6-11) vs. 36s (27-63), p<0.001]. All teams utilized the hospital AED to defibrillate within 180s per AHA guidelines [HospBLS: 122s (103-149) vs. TradBLS: 139s (117-172), p=0.09]. HospBLS teams performed more hospital-specific maneuvers to optimize compressions, i.e. utilized: CPR button to flatten bed: [7/30 (23%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p=0.006], backboard: [21/30 (70%) vs. 5/29 (17%), p<0.001], stepstool: [28/30 (93%) vs. 8/29 (28%), p<0.001], lowered bedrails: [28/30 (93%) vs. 10/29 (34%), p<0.001], connected oxygen appropriately: [26/30 (87%) vs. 1/29 (3%), p<0.001] and used oral airway and/or two-person bagging when traditional bag-mask-ventilation unsuccessful: [30/30 (100%) vs. 0/29 (0%), p<0.001]. CONCLUSION: A hospital focused BLS course utilizing RCDP was associated with improved performance on hospital-specific quality measures compared with the traditional AHA course.
