Search

Background The Alberta Health Services' Provincial Simulation Program (eSIM) is Canada's largest simulation program. The eSIM mobile simulation program specializes in delivering simulation-based education (SBE) to rural and remote communities (RRC). During the COVID-19 pandemic, a quality improvement project involving rapid cycle in situ virtually facilitated simulation (VFS) for COVID-19 airway management and health systems preparedness in RRC was successfully implemented. Methods Between April 24 and July 31, 2020, a team of six rural simulationists (four nurses and two physicians) provided 24 VFS sessions with virtual debriefing to 200 health care providers distributed across 11 RRC in Alberta and the Northwest Territories, covering a geographic area of approximately 169,028 km2. Results Video analysis of sequential VFS rapid cycle sessions using a standardized observational tool indicated decreased personal protective equipment (PPE) breaches by 36.6% between the first and third cycles. Teams demonstrated increased competency with airway management such as correct use of bag-valve-mask ventilation, and implementation of health system process improvements, such as incorporation of an intubation checklist. Improvements occurred on average over 2.2 rapid cycles completed within 1.3 weeks per RRC. Postsession self-reported participant electronic surveys indicated self-reported improvement in clinical management, teamwork behavior, and health systems issues outcome measures which were categorized based on the Crisis Resource Management and Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) frameworks. Of the 48 survey respondents, 86.1% reported that VFS was equivalent or superior to in-person simulation. The cost of VFS was 62.9% lower than comparable in-person SBE. Conclusion VFS provides a rapidly mobilizable and cost-effective way of delivering high-quality SBE to geographically isolated communities.

Many simulation programs have recently shifted towards providing remote simulations with virtual debriefings. Virtual debriefings involve educators facilitating conversations through web-based videoconferencing platforms. Facilitating debriefings through a computer interface introduces a unique set of challenges. Educators require practical guidance to support meaningful virtual learning in the transition from in-person to virtual debriefings. The communities of inquiry conceptual framework offer a useful structure to organize practical guidance for conducting virtual debriefings. The communities of inquiry framework describe the three key elements—social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence—all of which contribute to the overall learning experience. In this paper, we (1) define the CoI framework and describe its three core elements, (2) highlight how virtual debriefings align with CoI, (3) anticipate barriers to effective virtual debriefings, and (4) share practical strategies to overcome these hurdles.

Objectives A large proportion of all emergency visits for paediatric patients across Canada are to general emergency departments (EDs). These centres may not be adequately equipped to provide optimal care for high acuity paediatric emergencies. The objective of this study was to determine paediatric readiness for general EDs and urgent care centres (UCCs) across Alberta and provide each centre with an overall weighted Paediatric Readiness Score (WPRS). Methods A paediatric readiness assessment consisting of 55-questions normalized on a 100-point scale was used to survey 107 general EDs, UCCs, and tertiary paediatric EDs in Alberta, Canada. It addresses six primary categories, including Coordination of Patient Care, Physician/Nurse Staffing and Training, Quality Improvement Activities, Patient Safety Initiatives, Policies and Procedures, and Equipment and Supplies. Descriptive statistics were used to present the WPRS score among different groups. Linear regression models were used to explore factors associated with the score. Results The overall response rate was 59.8%. The median overall WPRS (/100) for all general EDs and UCCs was 48.4 ([interquartile range {IQR}] 17.6). Factors that were correlated with overall score included high paediatric patient volume (24.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.52 to 38.04) and involvement in a simulation education outreach program (9.38, 95% CI: 1.11 to 17.66). Conclusion Based on this survey, the WPRS of EDs and UCCs across Alberta suggest a need to improve readiness to respond to high acuity paediatric emergencies in these settings.

Debriefings should promote reflection and help learners make sense of events. Threats to psychological safety can undermine reflective learning conversations and may inhibit transfer of key lessons from simulated cases to the general patient care context. Therefore, effective debriefings require high degrees of psychological safety—the perception that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and that one will not be embarrassed, rejected or otherwise punished for speaking their mind, not knowing or asking questions. The role of introductions, learning contracts and prebriefing in establishing psychological safety is well described in the literature. How to maintain psychological safety, while also being able to identify and restore psychological safety during debriefings, is less well understood. This review has several aims. First, we provide a detailed definition of psychological safety and justify its importance for debriefings. Second, we recommend specific strategies debriefers can use throughout the debriefing to build and maintain psychological safety. We base these recommendations on a literature review and on our own experiences as simulation educators. Third, we examine how debriefers might actively address perceived breaches to restore psychological safety. Re-establishing psychological safety after temporary threats or breaches can seem particularly daunting. To demystify this process, we invoke the metaphor of a ‘safe container’ for learning; a space where learners can feel secure enough to work at the edge of expertise without threat of humiliation. We conclude with a discussion of limitations and implications, particularly with respect to faculty development.

Healthcare organizations strive to deliver safe, high-quality, efficient care. These complex systems frequently harbor gaps, which if unmitigated, could result in harm. Systems-focused simulation (SFS) projects, which include systems-focused debriefing (SFD), if well designed and executed, can proactively and comprehensively identify gaps and test and improve systems, enabling institutions to improve safety and quality before patients and staff are placed at risk.The previously published systems-focused debriefing framework, Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) for Systems Integration (PSI), describes a systematic approach to SFD. It includes an essential “pre-work” phase, encompassing evidence-informed steps that lead up to a SFD. Despite inclusion in the PSI framework, a detailed description of the pre-work phase, and how each component facilitates change management, was limited.The goal of this paper is to elucidate the PSI “Pre-work” phase, everything leading up to the systems-focused simulation and debriefing. It describes how the integration of project and change management principles ensures that a comprehensive collection of safety and quality issues are reliably identified and captured.

Guideline compliant CPR is associated with improved survival for patients with cardiac arrest. Conventional Basic Life Support (BLS) training results in suboptimal CPR competency and skill retention. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of distributed CPR training with real-time feedback to conventional BLS training for CPR skills in pediatric healthcare providers.Healthcare providers were randomized into receiving annual BLS training (control) or distributed training with real-time feedback (intervention). The intervention group was asked to practice CPR for 2 min on mannequins while receiving real-time CPR feedback, at least once per month. Control group participants were not asked to practice CPR during the study period. Excellent CPR was defined as 90% guideline-compliance for depth, rate and recoil of chest compressions. CPR performance of participants was assessed (on infant and adult-sized mannequins) every 3 months for a duration of 12 months. CPR performance was compared between the 2 groups.A total of 87 healthcare providers were included in the analyses (control n = 41, intervention n = 46). Baseline assessment showed no significant difference in CPR performance across the 2 groups. The intervention group has a significantly greater proportion of participants with excellent CPR compared with the control group on an adult sized mannequin (14.6% vs. 54.3%, p 0.001) and infant-sized mannequin (19.5% vs. 71.7%, p 0.001) at the end of the study. In the intervention group, all CPR metrics except infant depth were improved and retained over the course of the study.Distributed CPR training with real-time feedback improves the compliance of AHA guidelines of quality of CPR.

Professional development opportunities are not readily accessible for most simulation educators, who may only connect with simulation experts at periodic and costly conferences. Virtual communities of practice consist of individuals with a shared passion who communicate via virtual media to advance their own learning and that of others. A nascent virtual community of practice is developing online for healthcare simulation on social media platforms. Simulation educators should consider engaging on these platforms for their own benefit and to help develop healthcare simulation educators around the world. Herein, we describe this developing virtual community of practice and offer guidance to assist educators to engage, learn, and contribute to the growth of the community.

Pediatric patients with trauma pose unique challenges, both practical and cognitive, to front-line care providers. The combination of anatomic, physiologic, and metabolic factors leads to unique injury patterns with different approaches and responses to treatment compared with adults. A similar traumatic mechanism can lead to slightly different internal injuries with unique management and treatment strategies between the two groups. This article is intended for community, nonpediatric trauma centers, and emergency physicians who are frequently required to assess, resuscitate, and stabilize injured children before they can be safely transferred to a pediatric trauma center for ongoing definitive care and rehabilitation.

Formal faculty development programs for simulation educators are costly and time-consuming. Peer coaching integrated into the teaching flow can enhance an educator's debriefing skills. We provide a practical guide for the who, what, when, where, why, and how of peer coaching for debriefing in simulation-based education. Peer coaching offers advantages such as psychological safety and team building, and it can benefit both the educator who is receiving feedback and the coach who is providing it. A feedback form for effective peer coaching includes the following: (1) psychological safety, (2) framework, (3) method/strategy, (4) content, (5) learner centeredness, (6) co-facilitation, (7) time management, (8) difficult situations, (9) debriefing adjuncts, and (10) individual style and experience. Institutional backing of peer coaching programs can facilitate implementation and sustainability. Program leaders should communicate the need and benefits, establish program goals, and provide assessment tools, training, structure, and evaluation to optimize chances of success.

Modern healthcare organizations strive for continuous improvement in systems and processes to ensure safe, effective, and cost-conscious patient care. However, systems failures and inefficiencies lurk in every organization, often emerging only after patients have experienced harm or delays. Simulation and debriefing, focused on identifying systems gaps, can proactively lead to improvements in safety and quality. Systems-focused debriefing requires a different approach than traditional, learner-focused debriefing. We describe PEARLS for Systems Integration, a conceptual framework, debriefing structure and script that facilitators can use for systems-focused debriefing. The framework builds on Promoting Excellence And Reflective Learning in Simulation, using common debriefing strategies (plus/delta, focused facilitation, and directive feedback) in a modified format, with new debriefing scripts. Promoting Excellence And Reflective Learning in Simulation for System Integration offers a structured framework, adaptable for debriefing systems-focused simulations, to identify systems issues and maximize improvements in patient safety and quality.

Simulation-based education often relies on confederates, who provide information or perform clinical tasks during simulation scenarios, to play roles. Although there is experience with confederates in their more routine performance within educational programs, there is little literature on the training of confederates in the context of simulation-based research. The CPR CARES multicenter research study design included 2 confederate roles, in which confederates' behavior was tightly scripted to avoid confounding primary outcome measures. In this report, we describe our training process, our method of adherence assessment, and suggest next steps regarding confederate training scholarship.

The Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) blended approach to debriefing encourages educators to purposefully merge various debriefing strategies to tailor discussion to learner needs and learning context. While debriefing is a key component to simulation-based education, few resources exist to promote implementation of specific debriefing approaches. In response to growing demands from simulation programs and facilitators wishing to teach the PEARLS approach to debriefing, we offer a collection of resources to serve as a faculty development guide for implementation of PEARLS. In this article, we discuss common pitfalls and associated solutions when using PEARLS to facilitate debriefings and offer a PEARLS debriefing checklist that can serve as a tool for providing peer feedback on debriefing performance.

The pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) environment is well suited for simulation-based activities, be they educational interventions for PEM learners, evaluations of the interface between health providers and the environment that they work in, or research investigations using simulation as a tool to answer specific clinical questions. As such, PEM has been among the leaders in the integration of this modality for clinical training. Traditionally, simulation has been used extensively for the dissemination of clinical training in the areas of clinical knowledge and its application, and the clinical, technical, and teamwork skills involved in PEM care. Increasingly, simulation is being used in novel applications, including breaking bad news, disclosure of error, family-centered care, quality and patient safety education, and system-level integration. The future will look to further identify, measure, and inform the integration of simulation with new and innovative adjuncts in the clinical environment, as well as to determine the optimal timing and use of simulation-based education to enhance the quality of care delivered to patients by the interprofessional and multidisciplinary team.

Simulation-based education (SBE) has emerged as an essential modality for health professions education. One of the central tenants of effective SBE is reflective practice, typically guided by a facilitated debriefing. The debriefing conversation has the possibility of becoming a difficult conversation based on learner and situation-related factors. Difficult debriefing situations may threaten the learning environment, thus requiring an appreciation and understanding of the various ways that learners may react adversely to simulation and debriefing.This article provides a review of the various phenotypes of difficult debriefing situations and a toolbox of proactive and reactive strategies to help guide the simulation educator to manage these situations, with the ultimate goal of achieving learning objectives.

The debriefing is an essential component of simulation-based training for healthcare professionals, but learning this complex skill can be challenging for simulation faculty. There are multiple competing priorities for a debriefer’s attention that can contribute to a high mental workload, which may adversely affect debriefer performance and consequently learner outcomes. In this paper, we conceptualize the debriefer as a learner of debriefing skills and we discuss Cognitive Load Theory to categorize the many potential mental loads that can affect the faculty debriefer as learner. We then discuss mitigation strategies that can be considered by faculty development programmes to enhance professional development of debriefing staff.

Crisis resource management principles dictate appropriate distribution of mental and/or physical workload so as not to overwhelm any one team member. Workload during pediatric emergencies is not well studied. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index is a multidimensional tool designed to assess workload validated in multiple settings. Low workload is defined as less than 40, moderate 40-60, and greater than 60 signify high workloads. Our hypothesis is that workload among both team leaders and team members is moderate to high during a simulated pediatric sepsis scenario and that team leaders would have a higher workload than team members.Multicenter observational study.Nine pediatric simulation centers (five United States, three Canada, and one United Kingdom).Team leaders and team members during a 12-minute pediatric sepsis scenario.National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index.One hundred twenty-seven teams were recruited from nine sites. One hundred twenty-seven team leaders and 253 team members completed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index. Team leader had significantly higher overall workload than team member (51 ± 11 vs 44 ± 13; p0.01). Team leader had higher workloads in all subcategories except in performance where the values were equal and in physical demand where team members were higher than team leaders (29 ± 22 vs 18 ± 16; p0.01). The highest category for each group was mental 73 ± 13 for team leader and 60 ± 20 for team member. For team leader, two categories, mental (73 ± 17) and effort (66 ± 16), were high workload, most domains for team member were moderate workload levels.Team leader and team member are under moderate workloads during a pediatric sepsis scenario with team leader under high workloads (60) in the mental demand and effort subscales. Team leader average significantly higher workloads. Consideration of decreasing team leader responsibilities may improve team workload distribution.

Simulation-based educational activities are happening in the clinical environment but are not all uniform in terms of their objectives, delivery, or outputs. While these activities all provide an opportunity for individual and team training, nuances in the location, timing, notification, and participants impact the potential outcomes of these sessions and objectives achieved. In light of this, there are actually many different types of simulation-based activity that occur in the clinical environment, which has previously all been grouped together as “in situ” simulation. However, what truly defines in situ simulation is how the clinical environment responds in its’ natural state, including the personnel, equipment, and systems responsible for care in that environment. Beyond individual and team skill sets, there are threats to patient safety or quality patient care that result from challenges with equipment, processes, or system breakdowns. These have been labeled “latent safety threats.” We submit that the opportunity for discovery of latent safety threats is what defines in situ simulation and truly differentiates it from what would be more rightfully called “on-site” simulation. The distinction between the two is highlighted in this article, as well as some of the various sub-types of in situ simulation.

Context Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is now ubiquitous at all levels of medical training. Given the substantial resources needed for SBME, economic evaluation of simulation-based programmes or curricula is required to demonstrate whether improvement in trainee performance (knowledge, skills and attitudes) and health outcomes justifies the cost of investment. Current literature evaluating SBME fails to provide consistent and interpretable information on the relative costs and benefits of alternatives. Content Economic evaluation is widely applied in health care, but is relatively scarce in medical education. Therefore, in this paper, using a focus on SBME, we define economic evaluation, describe the key components, and discuss the challenges associated with conducting an economic evaluation of medical education interventions. As a way forward to the rigorous and state of the art application of economic evaluation in medical education, we outline the steps to gather the necessary information to conduct an economic evaluation of simulation-based education programmes and curricula, and describe the main approaches to conducting an economic evaluation. Conclusion A properly conducted economic evaluation can help stakeholders (i.e., programme directors, policy makers and curriculum designers) to determine the optimal use of resources in selecting the modality or method of assessment in simulation. It also helps inform broader decision making about allocation of scarce resources within an educational programme, as well as between education and clinical care. Economic evaluation in medical education research is still in its infancy, and there is significant potential for state-of-the-art application of these methods in this area.

Debriefing is a critical component in the process of learning through healthcare simulation. This critical review examines the timing, facilitation, conversational structures, and process elements used in healthcare simulation debriefing. Debriefing occurs either after (postevent) or during (within-event) the simulation. The debriefing conversation can be guided by either a facilitator (facilitator-guided) or the simulation participants themselves (self-guided). Postevent facilitator-guided debriefing may incorporate several conversational structures. These conversational structures break the debriefing discussion into a series of 3 or more phases to help organize the debriefing and ensure the conversation proceeds in an orderly manner. Debriefing process elements are an array of techniques to optimize reflective experience and maximize the impact of debriefing. These are divided here into the following 3 categories: essential elements, conversational techniques/educational strategies, and debriefing adjuncts. This review provides both novice and advanced simulation educators with an overview of various methods of conducting healthcare simulation debriefing. Future research will investigate which debriefing methods are best for which contexts and for whom, and also explore how lessons from simulation debriefing translate to debriefing in clinical practice.