Simulation and training of procedural sedation

Quality Improvement Initiative Using Blended In Situ Simulation Training on Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in a Pediatric Emergency Department: Better Patient Care at Lower Costs

INTRODUCTION

There is evidence in the literature for high-fidelity in situ simulation training programs being an effective modality for physicians training. This quality initiative focused on implementation of the procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in our pediatric emergency department (PED). The primary outcomes of this study were to evaluate the impact of blended in situ simulation training (BST) program on PSA for closed forearm fracture reduction in the PED and to assess its cost-effectiveness. The secondary outcomes were to estimate this change on PSA's clinical efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2018, a single-center, quasi-experimental, uncontrolled before and after study on forearm fracture reduction management was conducted. To assess the impact of our BST-PSA course, both historical control and prospective analyses were performed. Statistical significance was based on Fisher exact test or Pearson χ 2 test.

RESULTS

Eight hundred eighty-five children met inclusion criteria. A significant difference in the number of PSAs performed in the PED, before and after BST, was found (37% vs. 85.3%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, a reduction in the number of hospitalizations for closed fracture reduction was measured (68.2% vs. 31.8%, P < 0.001). The overall cost savings from the BST-enabled increase in PSAs carried out in the PED was €370,714 ($440,838) with a return on investment of 64:1. No significant increase of PSA-related adverse events was found, and no serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide evidence of the benefits of implementing BST to enable PSA use in the PED, with an improved patient flow and significant cost savings from avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations.

Improving safety and reducing error in endoscopy: simulation training in human factors

Patient safety incidents occur throughout healthcare and early reports have exposed how deficiencies in 'human factors' have contributed to mortality in endoscopy. Recognising this, in the UK, the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have implemented a number of initiatives including the 'Improving Safety and Reducing Error in Endoscopy' (ISREE) strategy. Within this, simulation training in human factors and Endoscopic Non-Technical Skills (ENTS) is being developed. Across healthcare, simulation training has been shown to improve team skills and patient outcomes. Although the literature is sparse, integrated and in situ simulation modalities have shown promise in endoscopy. Outcomes demonstrate improved individual and team performance and development of skills that aid clinical practice. Additionally, the use of simulation training to detect latent errors in the working environment is of significant value in reducing error and preventing harm. Implementation of simulation training at local and regional levels can be successfully achieved with collaboration between organisational, educational and clinical leads. Nationally, simulation strategies are a key aspect of the ISREE strategy to improve ENTS training. These may include integration of simulation into current training or development of novel simulation-based curricula. However used, it is evident that simulation training is an important tool in developing safer endoscopy.

Needs assessment survey for simulation-based training for gastrointestinal endoscopy nurses

The optimal performance of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy nurses is required for patient safety and quality improvement. The aim of the present study was to assess the educational needs for simulation-based training for Korean GI endoscopy nurses using importance-performance analysis. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 238 Korean nurses from 25 endoscopy units. The educational needs of these nurses were identified using the 35 item clinical competence importance-performance scale. Exploratory factor analysis of the scale identified the following eight factors: emergency care, patient monitoring, evidence-based practice, documentation and referral, patient safety, nursing process, patient assessment, and infection control. A significant overall mean difference was identified between importance and performance for all eight factors, with emergency care showing the largest difference. It was also ranked the highest priority for continuing education in the importance-performance analysis matrix. Therefore, simulation-based training should focus on enhancing emergency care competence for GI endoscopy nurses to improve patient safety and quality of care.

Poor discriminatory function for endoscopic skills on a computer-based simulator

BACKGROUND

Computer-based endoscopy simulators may enable trainees to learn and develop technical skills before performing on patients. Simulators require validation as adequate models of live endoscopy before being used for training or assessment purposes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate content and criterion validity of the CAE EndoscopyVR Simulator colonoscopy and EGD modules as predictors of clinical endoscopic skills.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, non-randomized, parallel cohort study.

SETTING

Single academic center with accredited gastroenterology training program.

PARTICIPANTS

Five novice first-year gastroenterology fellows and 6 expert gastroenterology attending physicians.

INTERVENTION

Participants performed 18 simulated colonoscopies and 6 simulated EGDs. The simulator recorded objective performance parameters. Participants then completed feedback surveys.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The 57 objective performance parameters measured by the endoscopy simulator were compared between the two study groups. Novice and expert survey responses were analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences between novice and expert performance were detected in only 19 of 57 (33%) performance metrics. Eight of these 19 (42%) were time-related metrics, such as total procedure time, time to anatomic landmarks, and time spent in contact with GI mucosa. Of 49 non-time related measures, the few additional statistically significant differences between novices and experts involved air insufflation, sedation management, endoscope force, and patient comfort. These findings are of uncertain clinical significance. Survey data found multiple aspects of the simulation to be unrealistic compared with human endoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSION

The CAE EndoscopyVR Simulator displays poor content and criterion validity and is thereby incapable of predicting skill during in vivo endoscopy.