RESUMO
Simulation training in healthcare settings has become a valuable training tool. It provides an ideal formative assessment for interdisciplinary teaching. It provides a high fidelity and highly immersive environment where healthcare staff and students can practice developing their skills in a safe and controlled manner. Simulation training allows staff to practice skills that better prepare them for clinical emergencies, therefore possibly optimising clinical care. While the benefits of simulation education are well understood, establishing a programme for use by critical care staff is complex. Complexities include the highly specialised scenarios that are not typically encountered in non-critical care areas, as well as the need for advanced monitoring equipment, ventilation equipment etc. These 12 tips are intended to assist healthcare educators in navigating the complexities in the establishment of a critical care simulation programme, providing advice on selecting target audiences, learning outcomes, creating a critical care simulation environment and recommendations on evaluation and development of the programme.
RESUMO
Background: There has been expanding use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the management of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Purpose: To determine if there are any recent studies that show any clear benefits regarding the use of PRP in the management of soft tissue injuries. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Group Specialised Register databases were queried for randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with a non-PRP/placebo in participants >18 years of age with musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Exclusion criteria were non-soft tissue injuries and research published in journals with an impact factor <3.5. The main outcome measure analyzed across all injury types was the effect of PRP injections on pain and function. Results: Of the 853 studies initially screened, 32 were included in this review. There were 13 studies that investigated the effects of PRP on the management of rotator cuff injuries; 7 studies that investigated PRP in conjunction with arthroscopy found no significant difference between PRP groups and controls, while 5 of 6 studies that investigated nonsurgical management showed positive results for PRP. Eight studies investigated various tendinopathies; of these, 2 studies demonstrated positive results for PRP in Achilles and gluteal tendinopathy management. Six studies examined PRP in acute soft tissue injuries, with 2 of these reporting significant improvements in recovery time for hamstring injuries and 1 study showing positive results for ankle ligament injuries. Two studies looked at acute rupture of soft tissues and found no benefit to PRP use. Two studies investigated PRP injections for chronic plantar fasciitis, and both reported positive results in pain and function with PRP. Finally, 1 study evaluated the effects of PRP on meniscal injuries and reported significant improvement in the healing rate and a decreased need for surgical repair. Conclusion: Currently, there is no research strongly advocating the use of PRP compared with traditional management strategies (rest, ice, corticosteroid injection, rehabilitation program). No long-term physiological benefits were reported to justify the invasive and costly technique of obtaining, producing, and implementing PRP.
