Team Coordination and Disconnects During Simulation-Based Medical Team Training

Introduction/Background As a result of the identification of substandard care as a leading cause of preventable medical errors, medical education has received a growing interest in the last two decades. However, simulation literature and educational theories are quite extensive, sometimes difficult to understand and Conclusions may be conflicting. The main question for all simulation program developers is, what is the most effective way to train the healthcare professionals coming to their center to improve patient outcome? To answer this question, we have developed a visual model, based on contemporary literature, educational theories and expert opinions. The model provides guidance in the complexity of simulation literature and distils effective elements. It can be used to evaluate and design effective simulation-based medical training. Methods This study is fundamental qualitative research, using literature and focus group sessions to collect data. A literature search for features of effective evidence based medical (EBM) simulation was conducted in Pubmed and Cochrane Database (search terms: medical simulation, effectiveness, review). Based on this literature, several items were selected to become integrated in a visual model. A search for literature supporting these items has also been conducted in Pubmed and References were hand searched. Based on this literature, a questionnaire was developed to facilitate an objective use of the model. The conceptual model was presented on the ECOSIM conference (London 2011) to collect opinions of experts in the field of medical simulation. Besides, 10 separate focus group sessions were held on the conference of the Dutch Society of Simulation in Healthcare (DSSH, Utrecht 2012). We selected two major review articles to define 12 items of effective medical simulation.3,4 The principles of the educational theory of Ericsson “deliberate practice” was used as a background theory to select the following items:5 feedback, repetitive practice, curriculum integration, difficulty range, multiple learning strategies, clinical variation, controlled environment, individualized learning, defined outcome, simulator validity, distributed learning and formal assessment.
These items are integrated in a comprehensive visual model. The model consist of a circle divided into 12 similar pieces. Each item is linked to a piece. A questionnaire, based on EBM literature as well as educational theories,6 was developed, containing three questions for each item with equally weighted scores. Depending on the score of each item on the questionnaire, the coloured piece will grow. In the visual model it is possible to calculate a mean score. Completing the questionnaire will result in an individually tailored visual representation of a simulation-based medical training. Special software has been developed for this visual model. During the two national and international conferences, simulation experts agreed on the usefulness of this model. Results: Conclusion We created a visual model based on the educational theories, EBM literature and expert opinions to evaluate and design simulation-based medical team training. Experts agreed on the usefulness of this tool. However, we would like to stress that each medical simulation training should fit the educational goals of that specific training. Therefore, each simulation course will have its own optimal visual model. The visual model will become accessible online, aiming at increasing the predictive value of the model.

Medical and non-medical personnel commonly encounter victims of life threatening injuries inflicted by various causes in diverse settings. More than 90% of global deaths and disability adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost because of injuries reportedly occur in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The degree of readiness and competence to manage victims of accidents is likely to vary among individual care givers for knowledge, skill and confidence which would also depend on their training status. It would thus be justified that training in basic life support and other emergency clinical skills be administered to enhance competences in resuscitating the accident victims. Whatever the scale of a mass casualty incident, the first response will be carried out by members of the local community-not just health care staff and designated emergency workers, but also many ordinary citizens. Therefore, both medical and non-medical personnel should be targeted to receive training in basic life support (BLS). In medical training, the traditional (didactic) approach has been suggested to be an efficient and well-experienced training method while with the advances in technology the use of simulation-based medical training (SBMT) is increasing since SBMT provides a safe and supportive educational setting, so that students can improve their performance without causing adverse clinical outcomes. Similarly, the use of simulation based training in BLS would not only reduce the procedural associated risks but also benefit more participants from the public domain than would be the case if the training was conducted on human subjects. Compared with the developed world set-up simulation based training in resource constrained settings may not be that well established. This paper will therefore seek to examine the role of medical simulation as a necessary advancement and supplementary method of training in basic life support for medical and non-medical personnel in resource limited settings.

To investigate whether simulation-based obstetric team training in a simulation centre improves patient outcome. Multicentre, open, cluster randomised controlled trial. Obstetric units in the Netherlands. Women with a singleton pregnancy beyond 24 weeks of gestation. Random allocation of obstetric units to a 1-day, multi-professional, simulation-based team training focusing on crew resource management (CRM) in a simulation centre or to no such team training. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed at the cluster level, including a measurement 1 year prior to the intervention. Primary outcome was a composite outcome of obstetric complications during the first year post-intervention, including low Apgar score, severe postpartum haemorrhage, trauma due to shoulder dystocia, eclampsia and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Maternal and perinatal mortality were also registered. Each study group included 12 units with a median unit size of 1224 women, combining for a total of 28 657 women. In total, 471 medical professionals received the training course. The composite outcome of obstetric complications did not differ between study groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.3]. Team training reduced trauma due to shoulder dystocia (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.99) and increased invasive treatment for severe postpartum haemorrhage (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-3.9) compared with no intervention. Other outcomes did not differ between study groups. A 1-day, off-site, simulation-based team training, focusing on teamwork skills, did not reduce a composite of obstetric complications. 1-day, off-site, simulation-based team training did not reduce a composite of obstetric complications.

Simulation-based medical training has been shown to be effective and is widely used in civilian hospitals; however, it is unclear how widely and how effectively simulation is utilized in the U.S. Military Health System (MHS). The current operational state of medical simulation in the MHS is unknown, and there remains a need for a system-wide assessment of whether and how the advances in simulation-based medical training are employed to meet the evolving needs of the present-day warfighter. Understanding the types of skills and methods used within simulation programs across the enterprise is important data for leaders as they plan for the future in terms of curriculum development and the investment of resources. The aim of the present study is to survey MHS simulation programs in order to determine the prevalence of skills taught, the types of learners served, and the most common methodologies employed in this worldwide health care system. A cross-sectional survey of simulation activities was distributed to the medical directors of all 93 simulation programs in the MHS. The survey was developed by the authors based on lists of critical wartime skills published by the medical departments of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force. Respondents were asked to indicate the types of learners trained at their program, which of the 82 unique skills included in the survey are trained at their site, and for each skill the modalities of simulation used, i.e., mannequin, standardized patients, part task trainers, augmented/virtual reality tools, or cadaver/live tissue. Complete survey responses were obtained from 75 of the 93 (80%) MHS medical simulation training programs. Across all skills included in the survey, those most commonly taught belonged predominantly to the categories of medic skills and nursing skills. Across all sites, the most common category of learner was the medic/corpsman (95% of sites), followed by nurses (87%), physicians (83%), non-medical combat lifesavers (59%), and others (28%) that included on-base first responders, law enforcement, fire fighters, and civilians. The skills training offered by programs included most commonly the tasks associated with medics/corpsmen (97%) followed by nursing (81%), advanced provider (77%), and General Medical Officer (GMO) skills (47%). The survey demonstrated that the most common skills taught were all related to point of injury combat casualty care and addressed the most common causes of death on the battlefield. The availability of training in medic skills, nursing skills, and advanced provider skills were similar in small, medium, and large programs. However, medium and small programs were less likely to deliver training for advanced providers and GMOs compared to larger programs. Overall, this study found that simulation-based medical training in the MHS is focused on medic and nursing skills, and that large programs are more likely to offer training for advanced providers and GMOs. Potential gaps in the availability of existing training are identified as over 50% of skills included in the nursing, advanced provider, and GMO skill categories are not covered by at least 80% of sites serving those learners.

Simulation-based obstetric team training focuses on building a system that will anticipate errors, improve patient outcomes and the performance of clinical care teams. Simulation-based obstetric team training has been proposed as a tool to improve the overall outcome of obstetric health care. To assess the effects of simulation-based obstetric team training on patient outcomes, performance of obstetric care teams in practice and educational settings, and trainees' experience. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched (14 April 2020), together with references checking and hand searching the available proceedings of 2 international conferences. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials) comparing simulation-based obstetric team training with no, or other type of training. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, to identify articles, assess methodological quality and extract data. Data from three cluster-randomised trials could be used to perform generic inverse variance meta-analyses. The meta-analyses were based on risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We used Kirkpatrick's model of training evaluation to categorise the outcomes of interest; we chose Level 3 (behavioural change) and Level 4 (patient outcome) to categorise the primary outcomes. We included eight RCTs, six of which were cluster-randomised trials, involving more than 1000 training participants and more than 200,000 pregnancies/births. Four studies reported on outcome measures on Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome), three studies on Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice), two studies on Kitkpatrick level 2 (performance in educational settings), and none on Kirkpatrick level 1 (trainees' experience). The included studies were from Mexico, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA, all middle- and high-income countries. Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome) Simulation-based obstetric team training may make little or no difference for composite outcomes of maternal and/or perinatal adverse events compared with no training (3 studies; n = 28,731, low-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different composite outcome definitions). We are uncertain whether simulation-based obstetric team training affects maternal mortality compared with no training (2 studies; 79,246 women; very low-certainty evidence). However, it may reduce neonatal mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01; 2 studies, 79,246 pregnancies/births, low-certainty evidence). Simulation-based obstetric team training may have little to no effect on low Apgar score compared with no training (RR 0.99, 95% 0.85 to 1.15; 2 studies; 115,171 infants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably reduces trauma after shoulder dystocia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduces the number of caesarean deliveries (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93; 1 study; n = 50,589; moderate-certainty evidence) Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice) We found that simulation-based obstetric team training probably improves the performance of the obstetric teams in practice, compared with no training (3 studies; 2398 obstetric staff members, moderate-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different outcome definitions). Simulation-based obstetric team training may help to improve team performance of obstetric teams, and it might contribute to improvement of specific maternal and perinatal outcomes, compared with no training. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, and the effect cannot be generalised for all outcomes. Future studies investigating simulation-based obstetric team training compared to training courses with a different instructional design should carefully consider how and when to measure outcomes. Particular attention should be paid to effect measurement at the level of patient outcome, taking into consideration the low incidence of adverse maternal and perinatal events.

Background Simulation-based obstetric team training focuses on building a system that will anticipate errors, improve patient outcomes and the performance of clinical care teams. Simulation-based obstetric team training has been proposed as a tool to improve the overall outcome of obstetric health care. Objectives To assess the effects of simulation-based obstetric team training on patient outcomes, performance of obstetric care teams in practice and educational settings, and trainees' experience. Search methods The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched (14 April 2020), together with references checking and hand searching the available proceedings of 2 international conferences. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials) comparing simulation-based obstetric team training with no, or other type of training. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, to identify articles, assess methodological quality and extract data. Data from three cluster-randomised trials could be used to perform generic inverse variance meta-analyses. The meta-analyses were based on risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We used Kirkpatrick's model of training evaluation to categorise the outcomes of interest; we chose Level 3 (behavioural change) and Level 4 (patient outcome) to categorise the primary outcomes. Main results We included eight RCTs, six of which were cluster-randomised trials, involving more than 1000 training participants and more than 200,000 pregnancies/births. Four studies reported on outcome measures on Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome), three studies on Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice), two studies on Kitkpatrick level 2 (performance in educational settings), and none on Kirkpatrick level 1 (trainees' experience). The included studies were from Mexico, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA, all middle- and high-income countries. Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome) Simulation-based obstetric team training may make little or no difference for composite outcomes of maternal and/or perinatal adverse events compared with no training (3 studies; n = 28,731, low-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different composite outcome definitions). We are uncertain whether simulation-based obstetric team training affects maternal mortality compared with no training (2 studies; 79,246 women; very low-certainty evidence). However, it may reduce neonatal mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01; 2 studies, 79,246 pregnancies/births, low-certainty evidence). Simulation-based obstetric team training may have little to no effect on low Apgar score compared with no training (RR 0.99, 95% 0.85 to 1.15; 2 studies; 115,171 infants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably reduces trauma after shoulder dystocia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduces the number of caesarean deliveries (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93; 1 study; n = 50,589; moderate-certainty evidence) Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice) We found that simulation-based obstetric team training probably improves the performance of the obstetric teams in practice, compared with no training (3 studies; 2398 obstetric staff members, moderate-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different outcome definitions). Authors' conclusions Simulation-based obstetric team training may help to improve team performance of obstetric teams, and it might contribute to improvement of specific maternal and perinatal outcomes, compared with no training. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, and the effect cannot be generalised for all outcomes. Future studies investigating simulation-based obstetric team training compared to training courses with a different instructional design should carefully consider how and when to measure outcomes. Particular attention should be paid to effect measurement at the level of patient outcome, taking into consideration the low incidence of adverse maternal and perinatal events.

Background Healthcare systems face increasing demands that may negatively impact staff well-being and elevate sick leave rates. Simulation-based team training enhances clinical skills through teamwork and communication training. However, further research is needed to understand its impact on healthcare professionals’ well-being. This study investigates how a simulation-based team training intervention affects sick leave among healthcare professionals. Methods We conducted a multisite controlled intervention study comparing sick leave rates during a 1-year intervention period (April 2023–April 2024) with the 2 preceding years (April 2021–April 2023). Four paediatric departments implemented an enhanced simulation-based training programme, improving the quality, structure and frequency of simulation activities. The intervention included facilitator training and a workshop, while four control departments continued standard practices. Statistical analyses included t-tests and mixed models using crude and adjusted difference-in-differences approaches, adjusting for staff age, gender and profession. Results During the intervention period, 244 simulations were completed in the intervention group versus 84 in the control group. Among all employees, including new hires and those who left during the study period, the adjusted reduction in sick leave during the intervention year compared to the preceding years was −1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.8, −0.2) over 2 years and −0.8% (95% CI: −1.7, −0.0) over 1 year. For the stable group, defined as employees continuously employed throughout the study period, the corresponding reductions were −1.1% (95% CI: −1.9, −0.2) and −0.9% (95% CI: −1.8, −0.0), respectively. A 1.0% reduction in sick leave corresponds to 11,858 additional working hours for 700 healthcare professionals during 1 year. Compared to the 1,993 hours spent on training, this represents a return on investment of 5.9 times. Discussion This study examines the impact of simulation-based training on sick leave among healthcare staff. Our findings indicate a reduced sick leave within the intervention group, even after adjusting for staff characteristics. However, baseline differences and the potential for regression towards the mean necessitate cautious interpretation. Despite these limitations, the results suggest that simulation-based team training may reduce sick leave and promote staff well-being. This intervention offers a promising strategy for enhancing the resilience of the healthcare workforce.

BackgroundHealthcare systems worldwide face challenges related to patient safety, quality of care, and interprofessional collaboration. Simulation-based team training has emerged as a promising approach to address some of these challenges by providing healthcare professionals with a controlled and safe environment to enhance their teamwork and communication skills. The purpose of this study protocol is to describe an intervention using simulation-based team training in pediatric departments.MethodsUsing a parallel-group, non-randomized controlled trial design, a simulation-based team training intervention will be implemented across four pediatric departments in Denmark. Another four pediatric departments will serve as controls. The intervention implies that healthcare professionals engage in simulation-based team training at a higher quantity and frequency than they did previously. Development of the intervention occurred from April 2022 to April 2023. Implementation of the intervention occurs from April 2023 to April 2024. Evaluation of the intervention is planned from April 2024 to April 2025. All simulation activity both before and during the intervention will be registered, making it possible to compare outcomes across time periods (before versus after) and across groups (intervention versus control). To evaluate the effects of the intervention, we will conduct four analyses. Analysis 1 investigates if simulation-based team training is related to sick leave among healthcare professionals. Analysis 2 explores if the simulation intervention has an impact on patient safety culture. Analysis 3 examines if simulation-based team training is associated with the treatment of critically ill newborns. Finally, Analysis 4 conducts a cost-benefit analysis, highlighting the potential return on investment.DiscussionThe implemented simulation-based team training intervention can be defined as a complex intervention. Following the Medical Research Council framework and guidelines, the intervention in this project encompasses feasibility assessment, planning of intervention, implementation of intervention, and rigorous data analysis. Furthermore, the project emphasizes practical considerations such as stakeholder collaboration, facilitator training, and equipment management.Trial registrationRegistered as a clinical trial on clinicaltrials.gov, with the identifier NCT06064045.

BackgroundThe use of simulation-based team training has increased over the past decades. Simulation-based team training within emergency medicine and critical care contexts is best known for its use by trauma teams and teams involved in cardiac arrest. In the domain of emergency medicine, simulation-based team training is also used for other typical time-critical clinical presentations. We aimed to review the existing literature and current state of evidence pertaining to non-technical skills obtained via simulation-based team training in emergency medicine and critical care contexts, excluding trauma and cardiac arrest contexts.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Before the initiation of the study, the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. We conducted a systematic literature search of 10 years of publications, up to December 17, 2019, in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two authors independently reviewed all the studies and extracted data.ResultsOf the 456 studies screened, 29 trials were subjected to full-text review, and 13 studies were included in the final review. None of the studies was randomized controlled trials, and no studies compared simulation training to different modalities of training. Studies were heterogeneous; they applied simulation-training concepts of different durations and intensities and used different outcome measures for non-technical skills. Two studies reached Kirkpatrick level 3. Out of the remaining 11 studies, nine reached Kirkpatrick level 2, and two reached Kirkpatrick level 1.ConclusionsThe literature on simulation-based team training in emergency medicine is heterogeneous and sparse, but somewhat supports the hypothesis that simulation-based team training is beneficial to teams’ knowledge and attitudes toward non-technical skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). Randomized trials are called for to clarify the effect of simulation compared to other modalities of team training. Future research should focus on the transfer of skills and investigate improvements in patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4).

Intensive care nurses’ perceptions of simulation-based team training for building patient safety in intensive care: A descriptive qualitative study

Multimodal educational interventions have been shown to improve short-term competency in, and knowledge of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. To evaluate the effectiveness of simulation-based medical education training in improving short and long-term competency in, and knowledge of CVC insertion. Before and after intervention study. University Geneva Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland, between May 2008 and January 2012. Residents in anaesthesiology aware of the Seldinger technique for vascular puncture. Participants attended a half-day course on CVC insertion. Learning objectives included work organization, aseptic technique and prevention of CVC complications. CVC insertion competency was tested pretraining, posttraining and then more than 2 years after training (sustainability phase). The primary study outcome was competency as measured by a global rating scale of technical skills, a hand hygiene compliance score and a checklist compliance score. Secondary outcome was knowledge as measured by a standardised pretraining and posttraining multiple-choice questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using paired Student's t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Thirty-seven residents were included; 18 were tested in the sustainability phase (on average 34 months after training). The average global rating of skills was 23.4 points (±SD 4.08) before training, 32.2 (±4.51) after training (P < 0.001 for comparison with pretraining scores) and 26.5 (±5.34) in the sustainability phase (P = 0.040 for comparison with pretraining scores). The average hand hygiene compliance score was 2.8 (±1.0) points before training, 5.0 (±1.04) after training (P < 0.001 for comparison with pretraining scores) and 3.7 (±1.75) in the sustainability phase (P = 0.038 for comparison with pretraining scores). The average checklist compliance was 14.9 points (±2.3) before training, 19.9 (±1.06) after training (P < 0.001 for comparison with pretraining scores) and 17.4 (±1.41) (P = 0.002 for comparison with pretraining scores). The percentage of correct answers in the multiple-choice questionnaire increased from 76.0% (±7.9) before training to 87.7% (±4.4) after training (P < 0.001). Simulation-based medical education training was effective in improving short and long-term competency in, and knowledge of CVC insertion.

As many errors made in healthcare are due to human factors, training must target these issues in order to improve the quality of care provided. Interprofessional team training has been in existence in several areas of healthcare for many years, including pediatrics. Simulation-based training is the ideal teaching modality to employ for team training, especially for acute care teams (resuscitation teams, operating room teams, etc.). There is much to carefully consider when establishing a simulation-based team training program, including decisions to be made around the purpose of such training, who the participants are, and how to set up the simulated clinical environment. Published research has consistently demonstrated that teams that participate in simulation-based team training improve their knowledge, skills, and behaviors related to teamwork concepts. There are several high-quality assessment tools available that can be used to objectively evaluate teamwork behaviors in the simulated clinical environment. Future research should aim to provide more objective evidence demonstrating that team training in the simulated environment has a positive impact on patient outcomes in the real clinical environment.

BackgroundA prompt start to an appropriate neonatal and paediatric resuscitation is critical to reduce mortality and morbidity. However, residents are rarely exposed to real emergency situations. Simulation-based medical training (SBMT) offers the opportunity to improve medical and non-technical skills in a controlled setting. This survey describes the availability and current use of SBMT by paediatric residents in Italy with the purpose of understanding residents’ expectations regarding neonatal and paediatric emergency training, and identifying gaps and potential areas for future implementation.MethodsA survey was developed and distributed to Italian residents. SBMT was defined as any kind of training with a mannequin in a contextualised clinically realistic scenario.ResultsThe response rate was 14.4%, covering the 71% of Italian paediatric residency programmes. Among them, 88% stated that Out of the 274 residents, 88% stated that they received less than 5 h of SBMT during the past training year, with 66% not participating in any kind of simulation activity. In 62% of the programmes no simulation training facility was available to residents. Among those who received SBMT, 46% used it for procedures and skills, 30% for clinical scenarios, but only 24% of them reported a regular use for debriefing. Of the overall respondents, 93% were interested in receiving SBMT to improve decision-making abilities in complex medical situations, to improve technical/procedural skills, and to improve overall competency in neonatal and paediatric emergencies, including non-technical skills. The main barriers to the implementation of SBMT programmes in Italian paediatric residencies were: the lack of experts (57%), the lack of support from the school director (56%), the lack of organisation in planning simulation centre courses (42%) and the lack of teaching materials (42%).ConclusionsThis survey shows the scarce use of SBMT during paediatric training programmes in Italy and points out the main limitations to its diffusion. This is a call to action to develop organised SBMT during paediatric residency programs, to train qualified personnel, and to improve the quality of education and care in this field.

Preparing for the Unknown: Simulation-based Training in a New Procedural /PACU Area to Increase Patient Safety

High-Fidelity Simulation-Based Team Training in Urology: Evaluation of Technical and Nontechnical Skills of Urology Residents During Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy