Barriers and Solutions to Advancing Emergency Medicine Simulation-based Research: A Call to Action

Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis 1991-2021

Background

Over the past decade, the use of technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine (EM) education has grown, yet we still lack a clear understanding of its effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation in EM.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify EM simulation research that compares technology-enhanced simulation with other instructional modalities. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion and abstracted information on learners, clinical topics, instructional design features, outcomes, cost, and study quality. Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were pooled using random effects.

Results

We identified 60 studies, enrolling at least 5279 learners. Of these, 23 compared technology-enhanced simulation with another instructional modality (e.g., living humans, lecture, small group), and 37 compared two forms of technology-enhanced simulation. Compared to lecture or small groups, we found simulation to have nonsignificant differences for time skills (SMD 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to 0.89, n = 3), but a large, significant effect for non-time skills (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.46, n = 8). Comparison of alternative types of technology-enhanced simulation found favorable associations with skills acquisition, of moderate magnitude, for computer-assisted guidance (compared to no computer-assisted guidance), for time skills (SMD 0.50, 95% CI -1.66 to 2.65, n = 2) and non-time skills (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, n = 6), and for more task repetitions (time skills SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.86, n = 2) and active participation (compared to observation) for time skills (SMD 0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45, n = 2) and non-time skills (SMD 0.33 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58, n = 3).

Conclusions

Technology-enhanced simulation is effective for EM learners for skills acquisition. Features such as computer-assisted guidance, repetition, and active learning are associated with greater effectiveness.

Using simulation team training with human's factors components in obstetrics to improve patient outcome: A review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

to assess the evidence from multidisciplinary simulation team training in obstetrics that integrates human's factors components on patient outcome.

INTRODUCTION

It has been stated that simulation-based education has the potential to improve technical and nontechnical skills. Reports from enquiries into maternal and newborn adverse outcomes, highlight that the majority of incidents are due to a breakdown of communication and a lack of crisis resource management skills (CRM). It is therefore reasonable to think that a better training on teamwork based on simulation will ultimately improve obstetrics care. In order to explore further that idea, we conducted a literature review on patient outcome after a multidisciplinary simulation training in obstetrics.

METHOD

Pubmed, Advances in health sciences education, BMC in medical education, BMC in pregnancy and Childbirth, BMJ open, BMJ Simulation and technology enhanced learning were searched from inception to May 2020 for full-text publications in English on interprofessional, multidisciplinary, obstetrics, simulation training, non-technical skills, CRM. Searches were limited to studies with a report on patient outcome after a multidisciplinary simulation program that included elements of CRM.

RESULT

Out of the ten studies selected in our review, five were single site before and after prospective studies and five were cluster before and after randomized trials. All the single site studies reported a positive outcome in low and high resource countries. Three single site studies reported a reduction between 41 and 50 % of blood transfusion after simulation team training. Two single studies reported a reduction of maternal mortality by 34 % and a decrease in an adverse obstetrics index outcome from 0.052 to 0.048 with a p-value of 0.05. Cluster studies showed either no change or some improvement in patient outcomes such as a 37 % improvement on weighted obstetrics adverse outcome, a 17 % reduction in the incidence of PPH and a 47 % reduction in the incidence of retained placenta. Stillbirths rate was reduced by 34 % while newborn deaths was down by 62 %. There was also a 15 % reduction of maternal mortality in favor of the trained team after adjustment to the secular mortality trend. Neonatal death from 24 weeks during the first 24 h was also reduced by 83 % in the intervention site compare with an increase by 18 % in the control site.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that simulation team training that includes CRM is associated with better patient outcome. In order to consolidate this finding, appropriate methodology should be used in future studies with the support of health authorities.

Virtual Mentoring: Two Adaptive Models for Supporting Early-career Simulation Investigators in the Era of Social Distancing

BACKGROUND

Early-career simulation investigators identify limited mentorship as a common barrier to disseminating scholarship and launching a successful academic career in emergency medicine (EM). Conferences often bridge this gap, but the COVID-19 pandemic has forced their indefinite delay. Virtual solutions are needed to capitalize on the breadth of national simulation research experts and grow mentorship in a postpandemic world.

METHODS

We developed two complementary innovations to facilitate scholarship development and minimize COVID-associated career challenges resulting from social distancing requirements. The e-fellows forum (FF) provides a capstone experience for works-in-progress and the e-consultation service (CS) supports simulation research during the earlier project stages of design and development. In conjunction with the Society for Academic Medicine's Simulation Academy, we applied videoconferencing technology for both of these novel, virtual innovations. We analyzed corresponding chat transcripts and detailed field notes for emerging themes. In addition, we collected quantitative data via participant surveys regarding their experiences and impact on their projects.

RESULTS

Nine simulation fellows presented at the FF and seven junior simulation investigators participated in the CS sessions. Most preferred the virtual format (56% FF, 66% CS) and found the sessions to be helpful in project advancement (66% FF, 100% CS). COVID-19 affected most projects (89% FF, 67% CS). We identified three themes via qualitative analysis: design concerns and inquiries, validation or support shown by mentors and peers, and professional cohesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants felt that both virtual mentorship innovations advanced their simulation research projects and fostered a sense of professional cohesion within a greater community of practice. These benefits can be powerful at a time where simulation researchers in EM feel disconnected in an era of social distancing. Our future work will include adaptations to a hybrid model with both virtual and in-person modalities as well as creation of more e-mentorship opportunities, thus broadening the early-career simulation research community of practice.