In Situ Simulation and Clinical Outcomes in Infants Born Preterm

Implementation of a multi-site neonatal simulation improvement program: a cost analysis

BACKGROUND

To improve patient outcomes and provider team practice, the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC) created the Simulating Success quality improvement program to assist hospitals in implementing a neonatal resuscitation training curriculum. This study aimed to examine the costs associated with the design and implementation of the Simulating Success program.

METHODS

From 2017-2020, a total of 14 sites participated in the Simulating Success program and 4 of them systematically collected resource utilization data. Using a micro-costing approach, we examined costs for the design and implementation of the program occurring at CPQCC and the 4 study sites. Data collection forms were used to track personnel time, equipment/supplies, space use, and travel (including transportation, food, and lodging). Cost analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective. Costs incurred by CPQCC were allocated to participant sites and then combined with site-specific costs to estimate the mean cost per site, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Cost estimates were inflation-adjusted to 2022 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

Designing and implementing the Simulating Success program cost $228,148.36 at CPQCC, with personnel cost accounting for the largest share (92.2%), followed by program-related travel (6.1%), equipment/supplies (1.5%), and space use (0.2%). Allocating these costs across participant sites and accounting for site-specific resource utilizations resulted in a mean cost of $39,210.69 per participant site (95% CI: $34,094.52-$44,326.86). In sensitivity analysis varying several study assumptions (e.g., number of participant sites, exclusion of design costs, and useful life span of manikins), the mean cost per site changed from $35,645.22 to $39,935.73. At all four sites, monthly cost of other neonatal resuscitation training was lower during the program implementation period (mean = $1,112.52 per site) than pre-implementation period (mean = $2,504.01 per site). In the 3 months after the Simulating Success program ended, monthly cost of neonatal resuscitation training was also lower than the pre-implementation period at two of the four sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing a multi-site neonatal in situ simulation program requires investment of sufficient resources. However, such programs may have financial and non-financial benefits in the long run by offsetting the need for other neonatal resuscitation training and improving practice.

Simulation based education in paediatric resuscitation

There is increasing use of clinical Simulation Based Education (SBE) in healthcare due to an increased focus on patient safety, the call for a new training model not based solely on apprenticeship, a desire for standardised educational opportunities that are available on-demand, and a need to practice and hone skills in a controlled environment. SBE programs should be evaluated against Kirkpatrick level 3 or 4 criteria to ensure they improve patient or staff outcomes in the real world. SBE programs have been shown to improve outcomes in neonatology - reductions in hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, in brachial plexus injury, rates of school age cerebral palsy, reductions in 24hr mortality and improvements in first pass intubation rates. In paediatrics SBE programs have shown improvements in paediatric cardiac arrest survival, PICU survival, reduced PICU admissions, reduced PICU length of stay and reduced time to critical operations. SBE can improve the non-technical tasks of teamwork, leadership and communication (within the team and with patients and carers). Simulation is a useful tool in Quality and Safety and is used to identify latent safety issues that can be addressed by future programs. In high stakes assessment simulation can be a mode of assessment, however, care needs to be taken to ensure the tool is validated carefully.