Simulation-Based Assessment of Critical Care "Front-Line" Providers.

OBJECTIVES: Develop a standardized simulation method to assess clinical skills of ICU providers. DESIGN: Simulation assessment. SETTING: Simulation laboratory. SUBJECTS: Residents, Critical Care Medicine fellows, acute care nurse practitioner students. INTERVENTIONS: Performance scoring in scenarios from multiple Critical Care Medicine competency domains. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three-hundred eighty-four performances by 48 participants were scored using checklists (% correct) and holistic "global" ratings (1 [unprepared] to 9 [expert]). One-hundred eighty were scored by two raters. Mean checklist and global scores (± SD) ranged from 65.0% (± 16.3%) to 84.5% (± 17.3%) and 4.7 (± 1.4) to 7.2 (± 1.2). Checklist and global scores for Critical Care Medicine fellows and senior acute care nurse practitioner students (Experienced group, n = 26) were significantly higher than those for the Novice acute care nurse practitioner students (Novice group, n = 14) (75.6% ± 15.6% vs 68.8% ± 21.0% and 6.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.4 ± 1.5, respectively; p < 0.05). Residents (Intermediate group, n = 8) scored between the two (75.4% ± 18.3% and 5.7 ± 1.7). 38.5% of the Experienced group scored in the top quartile for mean global score, compared with 12.5% of the Intermediate and 7.1% of the Novice groups. Conversely, 50% of the Novice group scored in the lower quartile (< 5.3), compared with 37.5% of the Intermediate and 11.5% of the Experienced groups. Psychometric analyses yielded discrimination values greater than 0.3 for most scenarios and reliability for the eight-scenario assessments of 0.51 and 0.60, with interrater reliability of 0.71 and 0.75, for checklist and global scoring, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation assessments yielded reasonably reliable measures of Critical Care Medicine decision-making skills. Despite a wide range of performance, those with more ICU training and experience performed better, providing evidence to support the validity of the scores. Simulation-based assessments may ultimately prove useful to determine readiness to assume decision-making roles in the ICU.

Advances in the management of sepsis and the understanding of key immunologic defects.

Anesthesiologists are increasingly confronting the difficult problem of caring for patients with sepsis in the operating room and in the intensive care unit. Sepsis occurs in more than 750,000 patients in the United States annually and is responsible for more than 210,000 deaths. Approximately 40% of all intensive care unit patients have sepsis on admission to the intensive care unit or experience sepsis during their stay in the intensive care unit. There have been significant advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the disorder and its treatment. Although deaths attributable to sepsis remain stubbornly high, new treatment algorithms have led to a reduction in overall mortality. Thus, it is important for anesthesiologists and critical care practitioners to be aware of these new therapeutic regimens. The goal of this review is to include practical points on important advances in the treatment of sepsis and provide a vision of future immunotherapeutic approaches.

Decision-making skills improve with critical care training: Using simulation to measure progress.

PURPOSE: Health care professionals are expected to acquire decision-making skills during their training, but few methods are available to assess progress in acquiring these essential skills. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a simulation methodology could be used to assess whether decision-making skills improve during critical care training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen simulated scenarios were designed to assess a critical care provider's ability to make decisions in the care of a critical ill patient. Seventeen (17) critical care providers managed 8 of the scenarios early during their training and then managed a second set of 8 scenarios (T2) at the conclusion of their training. RESULTS: Provider's mean global scenario scores (0-9) increased significantly fromT1 and T2 (5.64 ±â€¯0.74) and (6.54 ±â€¯0.64) with a large effect size (1.3). Acute care nurse practitioners and fellows achieved similar overall scores at the conclusion of their training (ACNP 6.43 ±â€¯0.57; Fellows 6.64 ±â€¯0.72). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence to support the validity of a simulation-based method to assess progress in decision-making skills. A simulation methodology could be used to establish a performance standard that determined a provider's ability to make independent decisions.