Five Questions Critical Care Educators Should Ask About Simulation-Based Medical Education

Efficiency of Simulation-Based Learning Using an ABC POCUS Protocol on a High-Fidelity Simulator

Critically ill patients with rapidly deteriorating clinical status secondary to respiratory and cardio-vascular compromise are at risk for immediate collapse if the underlying pathology is not recognized and treated. Rapid diagnosis is of utmost importance regardless of the setting. Although there are data to support the use of point-of-care ultrasound in critical patients, there is no consensus about the best educational strategy to implement. We designed a curriculum based on the ABC (Airway, Breathing, Circulation) protocol that covers essential airway, lung, and cardiac ultrasound skills needed for fast diagnosis in critical patients and applied it in high-fidelity simulation-based medical education sessions for anesthesia and intensive care residents year one and two. After theoretical and practical assessments, our results show statistical differences in the theoretical knowledge and above-average results in practical assessment. Our proposed curriculum based on a simple ABC POCUS protocol, with an Airway, Breathing, and Circulation approach, is useful in teaching ultrasound basics regarding airway, lung, and cardiac examination using high-fidelity simulation training to anesthesia and intensive care residents, but further research is needed to establish the utility of Simulation-Based Medical Education in Point of Care Ultrasound in the critical patient.

Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted medical education for trainees of all levels. Although telesimulation was initially used to train in resource-limited environments, it may be a reasonable alternative for replicating authentic patient experiences for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether a more passive approach through telesimulation training is as effective as traditional in-person simulation training.

Objective

Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of in-person versus remote simulation training on learners’ comfort with managing critical care scenarios.

Methods

This was a prospective observational cohort study assessing the impact of an in-person versus remote simulation course on volunteer fourth-year medical students from February to April 2021 at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Precourse and postcourse surveys were performed anonymously using an online secure resource.

Results

In the in-person learners, there was statistically significant improvement in learner comfort across all technical, behavioral, and cognitive domains. In remote learners, there was a trend toward improvement in self-reported comfort across technical and cognitive domains in the telesimulation course. However, the only statistically significant improvement in postcourse surveys of telesimulation learners, compared with baseline, was in running codes. Regardless of the training modality, the students had a positive experience with the critical care simulation course, ranking it, on average, 9.6 out of 10 (9.9 in in-person simulation vs. 9.3 in telesimulation; P = 0.06).

Conclusion

We demonstrated that implementation of a telesimulation-based simulation course focusing on critical care cases is feasible and well received by trainees. Although a telesimulation-based simulation course may not be as effective for remote learners as active in-person participants, our study provided evidence that there was still a trend toward improving provider readiness across technical and cognitive domains when approaching critical care cases.