Reporting Guidelines for Health Care Simulation Research

Evaluating the effects of simulation training on stroke thrombolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic strokes are medical emergencies, and reperfusion treatment, most commonly intravenous thrombolysis, is time-critical. Thrombolysis administration relies on well-organised pathways of care with highly skilled and efficient clinicians. Simulation training is a widespread teaching modality, but results from studies on the impact of this intervention have yet to be synthesised. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence and provide a recommendation regarding the effects of simulation training for healthcare professionals on door-to-needle time in the emergency thrombolysis of patients with ischaemic stroke.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were systematically searched (last updated 12th July 2023) for eligible full-text articles and conference abstracts. Results were screened for relevance by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was door-to-needle time for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator administration in emergency patients with ischaemic stroke. The secondary outcomes were learner-centred, improvements in knowledge and communication, self-perceived usefulness of training, and feeling 'safe' in thrombolysis-related decision-making. Data were extracted, risk of study bias assessed, and analysis was performed using RevMan™ software (Web version 5.6.0, The Cochrane Collaboration). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis and nineteen in the qualitative synthesis (n = 20,189 total patients). There were statistically significant effects of simulation training in reducing door-to-needle time; mean difference of 15 min [95% confidence intervals (CI) 8 to 21 min]; in improving healthcare professionals' acute stroke care knowledge; risk ratio (RR) 0.42 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.60); and in feeling 'safe' in thrombolysis-related decision-making; RR 0.46 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.59). Furthermore, simulation training improved healthcare professionals' communication and was self-perceived as useful training.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that simulation training improves door-to-needle times for the delivery of thrombolysis in ischaemic stroke. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.

Exploring undergraduate students achievement emotions during ward round simulation: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Simulation based learning (SBL) has increased in its use to best equip students for clinical practice. Simulations that mirror the complex realities of clinical practice have the potential to induce a range of emotions, without a clear understanding of their impact on learning and the learner. Students' emotional states have important effects on their learning process that can be either positive or negative, and are often difficult to predict. We aimed to determine: (1) To what extent achievement emotions are experienced by medical students during a complex simulation based learning activity, i.e. a ward round simulation (WRS). (2) What their performance scores are and too which extent performance scores do correlate with emotions and 3) how these emotions are perceived to impact learning.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used in this study. Using an Achievement Emotion Questionnaire, we explored undergraduate medical student's emotions as they participated in a complex ward round-based simulation. Their performance was rated using an observational ward round assessment tool and correlated with emotions scores. Six focus groups were conducted to provide a deeper understanding of their emotional and learning experiences.

RESULTS

Students experienced a range of emotions during the simulation, they felt proud, enjoyed the simulation and performed well. Students felt proud because they could show in the complex simulation what they had learned so far. Students reported moderate levels of anxiety and low levels of frustration and shame. We found non-significant correlations between achievement emotions and performance during ward round simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Placing undergraduate students in high complex simulations that they can handle raises positive academic achievement emotions which seem to support students' learning and motivation.

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1) Planning phase, to define the research question, systematically review the literature, identify outcome measures, and conduct pilot studies to ensure feasibility and estimate power; (2) Project Development phase, when the primary investigator identifies collaborators, develops the protocol and research operations manual, prepares grant applications, obtains ethical approval and executes subsite contracts, registers the study in a clinical trial registry, forms a manuscript oversight committee, and conducts feasibility testing and data validation at each site; (3) Study Execution phase, involving recruitment and enrollment of subjects, clear communication and decision-making, quality assurance measures and data abstraction, validation, and analysis; and (4) Dissemination phase, where the research team shares results via conference presentations, publications, traditional media, social media, and implements strategies for translating results to practice. With this manuscript, we provide a guide to conducting quantitative multicenter research with a focus on simulation-specific issues.