Driving performance of outpatients achieving discharge criteria after deep sedation is worse than these of their escort-driver: a prospective observational study on simulator.

Background: Achieving post-anesthesia discharge criteria after surgery or outpatient procedures does not mean that the patient has regained all his or her faculties, such as driving. Although mandated by many clinical guidelines, there is no evidence that escort-drivers reduce the risk of traffic accidents after deep sedation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate that hypothesis that driving performance as measured using a driving simulation would not differ between patients who had undergone deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy meeting discharge criteria and their escorts. Methods: This prospective study included patients scheduled for ambulatory gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep propofol sedation (patient group) and their escorts (escort group). Driving performance of escorts and patients (when discharge criteria were met) was assessed using a driving simulator. Results: 30 patients and their escorts were included. Patients crossed the midline significantly more frequently than escorts (3 [2-4] (median [IQR]) and 2 [1-3] crossings, respectively, p=0.015]. Patients were speeding for a higher proportion of the distance traveled compared with escorts (37 (20)% (mean (SD)) and 24 (17)% in patients and escorts, respectively, p = 0.029). There were no significant differences between groups in other simulation parameters. Conclusions: The ability to stay within the traffic lanes, as measured by the number of midline crossing during a simulated driving performance, is impaired in patients who meet discharge criteria after gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation compared with their escorts. This finding does not support a practice of allowing patients to drive themselves home after these procedures.

Is the "in situ" simulation for teaching anesthesia residents a lower cost, feasible and satisfying alternative to simulation center ? A 24 months prospective observational study in a university hospital.

BACKGROUND: The value of simulation in medical education is increasingly obvious. Nevertheless, the high cost of running a simulation center and the time's availability for students to get to simulation center remain a major problem. Technological developments and miniaturization of computer systems now allow handling of simulation manikins. Therefore, "in situ" simulation seems a valuable alternative to center simulation. OBJECTIVE(S): To identify the costs and feasibility of "in situ" simulation. To conduct an evaluation of the sessions by participants in order to adapt the educational objectives. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: 118 "in situ" simulation sessions were organized between March 2011 and February 2013 in the university hospital of Université Catholique de Louvain. Sessions took place in OR facilities. At the end of each session, a questionnaire was given to each participant. PARTICIPANTS: 357 of 368 participants completed a questionnaire. For each session, one or two nurses and 2 residents in anesthesia were invited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total costs for organizing the sessions. Number of realized sessions. Global satisfaction of participants. RESULTS: Total cost for organizing the sessions is 18 414 Euro. One hundred and one among the 118 scheduled sessions were performed, which corresponds to a rate of 85%. Three hundred and sixty-five people participated in training simulations. During the sessions, 357 questionnaires were completed. The global satisfaction was high with a median Likert scale of 5 (5-5) to the question "I would like to participate in other sessions in the future". CONCLUSION: The "in situ" simulation in anesthesia is feasible in a university hospital using the available facilities of the operating theater during the working hours of both participants and trainers. However, the number of annual sessions may be limited by the availability of the simulation room or staff.