In the past, many doctors learned their craft in understaffed settings with heavy patient loads. Long hours of work with considerable responsibility provided the opportunity to gain experience and build skills rapidly. Patients accepted junior doctors in no small part because of a lack of alternatives. Altered perceptions about what is reasonable in relation to hours of work, the role of trainee doctors, and the expectations of patients have changed the situation considerably. The airline industry (amongst others) has created high public expectations for safe and reliable services, and these expectations are extending increasingly to healthcare. One notable difference between the airlines and hospitals lies in the way individuals are trained. In medicine, trainee doctors are still relied on to contribute towards much of the day-to-day workload. In many countries, trainee doctors still undertake a large portion of the service work, often with only distant supervision, particularly at night. Whether this experience is learning or training is a moot point. By contrast, passengers expect fully trained pilots. Increasingly, patients expect their doctors to be adequately trained, and they also expect their doctors to maintain their expertise and skill throughout their careers. One way to meet these expectations is through simulation. Today, simulation is integral to pilot training, credentialing, and maintaining competence. Anesthesiologists have adopted simulation to facilitate various aspects of their training, and they have made great advances in developing realistic simulators and acquiring expertise in this form of education. In principle, it is believed that simulation provides a safe and controlled environment in which experience can be provided exactly as and when required, and reflective learning can be facilitated through skilled debriefing. Simulation in anesthesia is not as well developed as simulation in the aviation industry, and levels of realism in the former fall far short of those taken for granted in the latter. However, progress is being made, and staff members at many simulation centres take pride in ensuring that the experience of participation in their simulated scenarios is as close to clinical practice as possible. One way to achieve this is to incorporate standard anesthetic equipment into their simulations (e.g., anesthetic machines, monitors, defibrillators, infusion pumps, drugs, labels, and electronic or manual charts) that participants use in their daily practice. In the current issue of the Journal, Riem, Boet, and Chandra report a case in which this approach created a risk for staff and students in their simulation centre. It seems that an unregulated flow of carbon dioxide, which was ‘‘exhaled’’ from a Laerdal SimMan 3G (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) patient simulator, caused a precipitous increase in the temperature of soda lime being used during a simulated case. The authors raise the possibility that simulation may become ‘‘too realistic’’ and call for greater awareness of the potential risks associated with taking equipment into environments for which it was not intended (many simulations are carried out in modified offices rather than properly constituted operating rooms or ward areas). They emphasize the importance of including safety in standards for accrediting simulation centres. A. F. Merry, MBChB (&) Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: a.merry@auckland.ac.nz
Read full abstract