A Microdebriefing Crisis Resource Management Program for Simulated Pediatric Resuscitation in a Community Hospital: A Feasibility Study

In Situ Simulation as a Tool to Longitudinally Identify and Track Latent Safety Threats in a Structured Quality Improvement Initiative for SARS-CoV-2 Airway Management: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

In situ simulation has emerged as a powerful tool for identifying latent safety threats (LSTs). After the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an urban community emergency department (ED) identified opportunities for improvement surrounding acute airway management and particularly focused on infection control precautions, equipment availability, and interprofessional communication during acute resuscitation. Using the Model for Improvement, a hybrid in situ/quality improvement initiative was implemented using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to enhance systems for intubating patients with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Three PDSA cycles consisting of 10 simulations each were conducted from June 2020 through February 2021. Latent safety threats (LST) were identified through an in situ simulation scenario involving a patient with SARS-CoV-2 in acute respiratory failure. LSTs were collected through structured debriefs focused on (1) infection control, (2) equipment availability, and (3) communication. The SAFER-Matrix was used to score LSTs according to frequency and likelihood of harm by members of the ED QI team (SAFER score). The research team worked with the same QI leaders to implement action plans based on scored threats using cause-and-effect and driver diagrams. The Donabedian model was used to conceptually evaluate the quality of interventions upon conclusion of the third PDSA cycle.

RESULTS

The median SAFER score decreased from 10.94 in PDSA cycle 1 to 6.77 in PDSA cycle 2 to 4.71 in PDSA cycle 3. Across all identified LSTs, the SAFER score decreased by 3.114 for every additional PDSA cycle ( P = 0.0167). When evaluating for threats identified as being primarily structure based, there was a decrease in SAFER score of 1.28 per every additional PDSA cycle ( P = 0.001). There was a decrease in total count of LST of 0.20 per additional simulation run ( P = 0.02) after controlling for shift type, census, perceived workload, team size, and prior attendance in simulations across all PDSA cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a blueprint for the utilization of in situ simulation through multiple waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to identify LSTs and use the SAFER score as a surrogate marker to monitor the impact of interventions for a safer environment for both medical staff and patients.

The effectiveness of improving healthcare teams' human factor skills using simulation-based training: a systematic review

Background

Simulation-based training used to train healthcare teams’ skills and improve clinical practice has evolved in recent decades. While it is evident that technical skills training is beneficial, the potential of human factor training has not been described to the same extent. Research on human factor training has been limited to marginal and acute care scenarios and often to validate instruments. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of simulation-based training in improving in-hospital qualified healthcare teams’ human factor skills.

Method

A review protocol outlining the study was registered in PROSPERO. Using the PRISMA guidelines, the systematic search was conducted on September 28th, 2021, in eight major scientific databases. Three independent reviewers assessed title and abstract screening; full texts were evaluated by one reviewer. Content analysis was used to evaluate the evidence from the included studies.

Results

The search yielded 19,767 studies, of which 72 were included. The included studies were published between 2004 and 2021 and covered research from seven different in-hospital medical specialisms. Studies applied a wide range of assessment tools, which made it challenging to compare the effectiveness of human factor skills training across studies. The content analysis identified evidence for the effectiveness. Four recurring themes were identified: (1) Training human factor skills in qualified healthcare teams; (2) assessment of human factor skills; (3) combined teaching methods, and (4) retention and transfer of human factor skills. Unfortunately, the human factor skills assessments are variable in the literature, affecting the power of the result.

Conclusion

Simulation-based training is a successful learning tool to improve qualified healthcare teams’ human factor skills. Human factor skills are not innate and appear to be trainable similar to technical skills, based on the findings of this review. Moreover, research on retention and transfer is insufficient. Further, research on the retention and transfer of human factor skills from simulation-based training to clinical practice is essential to gain knowledge of the effect on patient safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41077-022-00207-2.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Versus E-Module on the Training of Donning and Doffing Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized, Simulation-Based Educational Study

Introduction Preventing errors in donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) is critical for limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Virtual reality (VR) has demonstrated itself as an effective tool for asynchronous learning, but its use in PPE training has not been tested. The objective of this study was to compare donning and doffing performance between VR and e-module PPE training. Methods A prospective randomized open-blinded controlled trial was conducted to determine differences in donning and doffing performance after VR and e-module PPE training among medical staff and medical students at a single institution. The primary outcome was donning and doffing performance with real PPE, assessed using a 64-point checklist. The secondary outcome was participant preparedness and confidence level after training.  Results Fifty-four participants were randomized, mostly consisting of medical students (n=24 {44%}) or emergency medicine and otolaryngology residents (n=19 {35%}). The VR group (n=27 {50%}) performed better than the control in the overall PPE scores but this was not statistically significant (mean {SD}, VR: 55.4 {4.4} vs e-module: 53.3 {8.1}; p = 0.40). VR participants also reported higher levels of preparedness and confidence after training. Residents as a subgroup achieved the highest increases after VR training compared to their counterparts in the control training group (mean {SD}, VR: 55.6 {4.9} vs e-module 48.4 {5.5}, p = 0.009).  Conclusion In this randomized trial, VR training was found to be non-inferior to e-module for asynchronous PPE training. Our results suggest that in particular residents may benefit most from VR PPE training. Additionally, VR participants felt more confident and prepared to don and doff PPE after training compared to e-module participants. These findings are particularly relevant given the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Future studies need to focus on VR integration into residency curriculum and monitoring for long-term skill retention.

Examining the benefits of extended reality in neurosurgery: A systematic review

While well-established in other surgical subspecialties, the benefits of extended reality, consisting of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies, remains underexplored in neurosurgery despite its increasing utilization. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the effects of extended reality (XR) in neurosurgery with an emphasis on the perioperative period, to provide a guide for future clinical optimization. Seven primary electronic databases were screened following guidelines outlined by PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine. Reported data related to outcomes in the perioperative period and resident training were all examined, and a focused analysis of studies reporting controlled, clinical outcomes was completed. After removal of duplicates, 2548 studies were screened with 116 studies reporting measurable effects of XR in neurosurgery. The majority (82%) included cranial based applications related to tumor surgery with 34% showing improved resection rates and functional outcomes. A rise in high-quality studies was identified from 2017 to 2020 compared to all previous years (p = 0.004). Primary users of the technology were: 56% neurosurgeon (n = 65), 28% residents (n = 33) and 5% patients (n = 6). A final synthesis was conducted on 10 controlled studies reporting patient outcomes. XR technologies have demonstrated benefits in preoperative planning and multimodal neuronavigation especially for tumor surgery. However, few studies have reported patient outcomes in a controlled design demonstrating a need for higher quality data. XR platforms offer several advantages to improve patient outcomes and specifically, the patient experience for neurosurgery.