Evaluating the role of simulation in healthcare innovation: recommendations of the Simnovate Medical Technologies Domain Group

Capturing what and why in healthcare innovation

Understandings of innovation usually encompass multiple overlapping aspects, putting innovation terminology at risk of vagueness and overuse. However, innovation concepts are expected to remain powerful and useful in healthcare beyond the pandemic and into the future, so clarity will be helpful for effective leadership. To disentangle and disambiguate meanings within innovation, we offer a framework that captures and simplifies foundational substance within innovation concepts. Our method is an overview review of innovation literature from the 5 years preceding COVID-19. 51 sources were sampled and analysed for explicit definitions of healthcare innovation. Drawing on broad themes suggested from previous reviews, and gathering specific themes emergent from this literary dataset, we focused on categorising the nature of innovations (the what) and reasons given for them (the why). We identified 4 categories of what (ideas, artefacts, practice/process and structure) and 10 categories of why (economic value, practical value, experience, resource use, equity/accessibility, sustainability, behaviour change, specific-problem solving, self-justifying renewal and improved health). These categories reflect contrasting priorities and values, but do not substantially interfere or occlude each other. They can freely be additively combined to create composite definitions. This conceptual scheme affords insight and clarity for creating precise meanings, and making critical sense of imprecision, around innovation. Improved communication and clear shared understandings around innovative intentions, policies and practices cannot but improve the chances of enhanced outcomes. The all-inclusive character of this scheme leaves space for considering the limits of innovation, and notwithstanding well-established critiques, provides a basis for clarity in ongoing usage.

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study

Introduction

Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators.

Methods

We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey.

Results

Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7–6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.

Technology-enhanced surgical education: attitudes and perceptions of the endoscopic surgery community in Turkey

The education programme of surgery has unique problems. In this study, first, a literature review is conducted to cover the studies found in the literature reporting on the problems of surgical education. Additionally, a survey study is conducted with 31 participants, who are either currently enrolled in endoscopic surgery education programmes in Turkey or are experts in the field. Supportively semistructured individual interviews are also conducted with five participants. These data are collected to better understand the instructional methods being used, their problems and the participants’ preferred methods to be used. Additionally, the participants’ attitudes are also investigated regarding the use of new technologies to enhance the current education programmes. The results indicate that, in Turkey, surgical education programmes are still mostly offered in traditional ways while other educational methods are used in an extremely limited manner. In general, the authors emphasise that more research needs to be conducted to better understand the characteristics of the medical students and develop standards for surgical education programmes, educational tools specific for related surgical domains and guidelines for the curriculum integration. The results of this study aimed to guide the instructional system designers for the endoscopic surgery education programmes.