The Impact of Just-in-Time Simulation Training for Healthcare Professionals on Learning and Performance Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Although just-in-time training (JIT) is increasingly used in simulation-based health professions education, its impact on learning, performance, and patient outcomes remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether JIT simulation training leads to improved learning and performance outcomes. We included randomized or nonrandomized interventional studies assessing the impact of JIT simulation training (training conducted in temporal or spatial proximity to performance) on learning outcomes among health professionals (trainees or practitioners). Of 4077 citations screened, 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. Just-in-time training simulation training has been evaluated for a variety of medical, resuscitation, and surgical procedures. Most JIT simulation training occurred immediately before procedures and lasted between 5 and 30 minutes. Despite the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review suggests JIT simulation training can improve learning and performance outcomes, in particular time to complete skills. There remains limited data on better patient outcomes and collateral educational effects.

Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.

INTRODUCTION: Workplace-based assessments are an important tool for trainee feedback and as a means of reporting expert judgments of trainee competence in the workplace. However, the literature has demonstrated that gender bias can exist within these assessments. We aimed to determine whether gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessment data exist in our residency training program. METHODS: This study was conducted at the University of Ottawa in the Department of Emergency Medicine. Four end-of-shift workplace-based assessments completed by men faculty and four completed by women faculty were randomly selected for each resident during the 2018-2019 academic year. Two blinded raters scored each workplace-based assessment using the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), a published nine-item quantitative measure of workplace-based assessment quality. A 2 × 2 mixed measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of resident gender and faculty gender was conducted, with mean CCERR score as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was repeated with mean workplace-based assessment rating as the dependent variable. RESULTS: A total of 363 workplace-based assessments were analyzed for 46 residents. There were no significant effects of faculty or resident gender on the quality of workplace-based assessments (p = 0.30). There was no difference in mean workplace-based assessment ratings between women and men residents (p = 0.92), and no interaction between resident and faculty gender (p = 0.62). Mean CCERR score was 25.8, SD = 4.2, indicating average quality assessments. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find faculty or resident gender differences in the quality of workplace-based assessments completed in our training program. While the literature has previously demonstrated gender bias in trainee assessments, our results are not surprising as assessment culture varies by institution and program. Our study cautions against generalizing gender bias across contexts, and offers an approach that educators can use to evaluate whether gender bias in the quality of trainee assessments exists within their program.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Les évaluations sur le lieu de travail constituent un outil important pour le retour d'information des stagiaires et comme moyen de rapporter les jugements d'experts sur les compétences des stagiaires sur le lieu de travail. Cependant, la littérature a démontré que des préjugés sexistes peuvent exister dans ces évaluations. Nous avons cherché à déterminer s'il existe des différences entre les sexes dans la qualité des données d'évaluation sur le lieu de travail dans notre programme de formation en résidence. MéTHODES: Cette étude a été menée à l'Université d'Ottawa dans le département de médecine d'urgence. Quatre évaluations en fin de poste de travail complétées par des professeurs hommes et 4 complétées par des professeurs femmes ont été sélectionnées au hasard pour chaque résident au cours de l'année universitaire 2018-2019. Deux évaluateurs en aveugle ont noté chaque évaluation sur le lieu de travail à l'aide du Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR), une mesure quantitative publiée en neuf points de la qualité de l'évaluation sur le lieu de travail. Une analyse de variance (ANOVA) à mesures mixtes 2 × 2 du sexe des résidents et du sexe des enseignants a été réalisée, avec le score CCERR moyen comme variable dépendante. L'ANOVA a été répétée en prenant comme variable dépendante la note moyenne de l'évaluation sur le lieu de travail. RéSULTATS: Au total, 363 évaluations sur le lieu de travail ont été analysées pour 46 résidents. Il n'y avait aucun effet significatif du sexe du corps professoral ou du résident sur la qualité des évaluations en milieu de travail (p = 0,30). Il n'y avait pas de différence dans les évaluations moyennes sur le lieu de travail entre les femmes et les hommes résidents (p = 0,92), et pas d'interaction entre le sexe du résident et celui de la faculté (p = 0,62). Le score moyen du CCERR était de 25,8, SD = 4,2, ce qui indique des évaluations de qualité moyenne. CONCLUSIONS: Nous n'avons pas constaté de différences entre les sexes au sein du corps professoral ou des résidents en ce qui concerne la qualité des évaluations en milieu de travail effectuées dans le cadre de notre programme de formation. Bien que la littérature ait déjà démontré l'existence de préjugés sexistes dans les évaluations des stagiaires, nos résultats ne sont pas surprenants car la culture de l'évaluation varie selon les établissements et les programmes. Notre étude met en garde contre la généralisation des préjugés sexistes dans tous les contextes et propose une approche que les éducateurs peuvent utiliser pour évaluer s'il existe des préjugés sexistes dans la qualité des évaluations des stagiaires au sein de leur programme.

Emergency physicians' attitudes and perceived barriers to the implementation of take-home naloxone programs in Canadian emergency departments.

OBJECTIVES: Rates of opioid-related deaths have reached the level of national public health crisis in Canada. Community-based opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs distribute naloxone to people at risk, and the emergency department (ED) may be an underutilized setting to deliver naloxone to these people. The goal of this study was to identify Canadian emergency physicians' attitudes and perceived barriers to the implementation of take-home naloxone programs. METHODS: This was an anonymous Web-based survey of members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Survey questions were developed by the research team and piloted for face validity and clarity. Two reminder emails were sent to non-responders at 2-week intervals. Respondent demographics were collected, and Likert scales were used to assess attitudes and barriers to the prescription of naloxone from the ED. RESULTS: A total of 459 physicians responded. The majority of respondents were male (64%), worked in urban tertiary centres (58.3%), and lived in Ontario (50.6%). Overall, attitudes to OEND were strongly positive; 86% identified a willingness to prescribe naloxone from the ED. Perceived barriers included support for patient education (57%), access to follow-up (44%), and inadequate time (37%). In addition to people at risk of overdose, 77% of respondents identified that friends and family members may also benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian emergency physicians are willing to distribute take-home naloxone, but thoughtful systems are required to facilitate opioid OEND implementation. These data will inform the development of these programs, with emphasis on multidisciplinary training and education.

Queen's simulation assessment tool: development and validation of an assessment tool for resuscitation objective structured clinical examination stations in emergency medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The use of high-fidelity simulation is emerging as an effective approach to competency-based assessment in medical education. We aimed to develop and validate a modifiable anchored global assessment scoring tool for simulation-based Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) of resuscitation competence in postgraduate emergency medicine (EM) trainees. METHODS: The Queen's Simulation Assessment Tool was developed using a modified Delphi technique with a panel of EM physicians. Ten standardized resuscitation OSCE scenarios were administered to EM trainees, and their video-recorded performances were scored by 3 independent and blinded EM attending physicians using the Queen's Simulation Assessment Tool. Correlational analyses and analysis of variance were applied to measure the discriminatory capabilities and interrater reliability of each scenario. A fully crossed generalizability study was conducted for each examination. RESULTS: Emergency medicine postgraduate trainees at Queen's University (n = 19-25 per station) participated in the study over 3 years. Interrater reliability showed acceptable levels of agreement for each scenario (mean Spearman ρ = 0.75 [0.63-0.87]; mean interclass correlation coefficient, 0.69 [0.58-0.87]). Discriminatory validity was strong, with senior residents outperforming junior residents in all but 1 of the 10 scenarios. Generalizability studies found the trainee and trainee by scenario interactions as the largest contributors to variance, with G coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.84. Resident trainees reported comfort being assessed in the simulation environment (3.8/5) and found the simulation-based examination valuable to their learning (4.6/5). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the development and validation of a novel modifiable anchored global assessment scoring tool for simulation-based OSCE assessment of resuscitation competence in postgraduate EM trainees.

The Simulation Olympics: a resuscitation-based simulation competition as an educational intervention.

The Department of Emergency Medicine at Queen's University developed, implemented, and evaluated an interprofessional simulation-based competition called the Simulation Olympics with the purpose of encouraging health care providers to practice resuscitation skills and foster strong team-based attitudes. Eleven teams (N  =  45) participated in the competition. Teams completed three standardized resuscitation scenarios in a high-fidelity simulation laboratory with teams composed of nurses, respiratory therapists, and undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees. Trained standardized actors and a dedicated technician were used for all scenarios. Judges evaluated team performance using standardized assessment tools. All participants (100%) completed an anonymous two-page questionnaire prior to the competition assessing baseline characteristics and evaluating participant attitudes, motivation, and barriers to participation. The majority of participants (71%) completed an evaluation form following the event focusing on highlights, barriers to participation, and desired future directions. Evaluations were uniformly positive in short-answer feedback and attitudinal scoring measures. To our knowledge, the Simulation Olympics competition is the first of its kind in Canada to be offered at an academic teaching hospital.