Design Thinking-Informed Simulation: An Innovative Framework to Test, Evaluate, and Modify New Clinical Infrastructure.

INTRODUCTION: Designing new healthcare facilities is complex and transitions to new clinical environments carry high risks, as unanticipated problems may arise resulting in inefficient care and patient harm. Design thinking, a human-centered design method, represents a unique framework to support the planning, testing, and evaluation of new clinical spaces throughout all phases of construction. Healthcare simulation has been used to test new clinical spaces, yet most report using simulation only in the late design stages. Moreover, healthcare design models have potentially underused human factors approaches calling for human-centered design. We applied a multimodal simulation-based approach underpinned by the principles of design thinking throughout the planning and construction stages of a newly renovated academic emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed and integrated 3 simulation strategies (table-top, mock-up, and in situ simulation) into the 5-step process of design thinking. Through end-user engagement, we identified potential challenges, prototyped solutions through table-top and mock-up simulations, and iteratively tested these solutions through in situ simulation within the actual clinical space. RESULTS: The team used end-user engagement and feedback to brainstorm and implement effective solutions to problems encountered before opening the new emergency department. The iterative steps and targeted use of simulation resulted in redesigning departmental processes and actual clinical space while mitigating anticipated safety threats and departmental deficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: Design thinking coupled with multimodal simulation across all phases of construction enhanced the design and testing of new clinical infrastructure. Applying this approach early, thoroughly, and efficiently will help healthcare organizations plan changes to clinical spaces.

A regional massive hemorrhage protocol developed through a modified Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: A massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP) enables rapid delivery of blood components in a patient who is exsanguinating pending definitive hemorrhage control, but there is variability in MHP implementation rates, content and compliance owing to challenges presented by infrequent activation, variable team performance and patient acuity. The goal of this project was to identify the key evidence-based principles and quality indicators required to develop a standardized regional MHP. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus technique was performed in the spring and summer of 2018. Panellists used survey links to independently review and rate (on a 7-point Likert scale) 43 statements and 8 quality indicators drafted by a steering committee composed of transfusion medicine specialists and technologists, and trauma physicians. External stakeholder input from all hospitals in Ontario was sought. RESULTS: Three rounds were held with 36 experts from diverse clinical backgrounds. Consensus was reached for 42 statements and 8 quality indicators. Additional modifications from external stakeholders were incorporated to form the foundation for the proposed MHP. INTERPRETATION: This MHP template will provide the basis for the design of an MHP toolkit, including specific recommendations for pediatric and obstetrical patients, and for hospitals with limited availability of blood components or means to achieve definitive hemorrhage control. We believe that harmonization of MHPs in our region will simplify training, increase uptake of evidence-based interventions, enhance communication, improve patient comfort and safety, and, ultimately, improve patient outcomes.

Application and Evaluation of Knowledge Retention Related to Advanced Trauma Care for Nurses (ATCN) Course Content: A Preliminary Study.

The Advanced Trauma Care for Nurses (ATCN) course was designed to help nurses increase their knowledge in management of the multiple trauma patient. To determine whether the trauma-related knowledge of ATCN course takers differed from nontakers, assess the factors associated with ATCN content knowledge among course takers, and explore the extent to which the ATCN content was used by course takers in their clinical practice. A cross-sectional online survey of 78 ATCN takers (nurses who had successfully completed the ATCN course within the previous 3 years) and 58 ATCN nontakers (a control group of nurses who had not taken the course but who worked in comparable clinical settings) was conducted. The survey consisted of demographic questions and a 15-item knowledge test spanning the ATCN course content. ATCN takers were also asked about the frequency with which a specific ATCN content had been used in their practice since taking the course. ATCN takers had a significantly higher (mean ± SD = 10.6 ± 2.2) total score on the study test than the ATCN nontakers (mean ± SD = 6.4 ± 2.6); t(134) = -10.0, p < .001. A shorter time since course completion was associated with higher knowledge scores. ATCN takers rated the clinical relevance and applicability of the course content as high. The findings suggest that completing the ATCN course increases knowledge levels of trauma patient management and that the ATCN course content is clinically relevant to the nurses. However, higher knowledge scores were observed for the most recent study participants, suggesting that booster sessions for ATCN course participants may be warranted.