Train-the-trainer: Pilot trial for ebola virus disease simulation training.

Background: Highly infectious but rare diseases require rapid dissemination of safety critical skills to health-care workers (HCWs). Simulation is an effective method of education; however, it requires competent instructors. We evaluated the efficacy of an internet-delivered train-the-trainer course to prepare HCWs to care for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Methods: Twenty-four individuals without prior EVD training were recruited and divided into two groups. Group A included nine trainees taught by three experienced trainers with previous EVD training. Group B included 15 trainees taught by five novice trainers without previous EVD training who completed the train-the-trainer course. We compared the efficacy of the train-the-trainer course by examining subject performance, measured by time to complete 13 tasks and the proportion of steps per task flagged for critical errors and risky and positive actions. Trainees' confidence in their ability to safely care for EVD patients was compared with a self-reported survey after training. Results: Overall trainees' confidence in ability to safely care for EVD patients did not differ by group. Participants trained by the novice trainers were statistically significantly faster at waste bagging (P = 0.002), lab specimen bagging (P = 0.004), spill clean-up (P = 0.01), and the body bagging (P = 0.008) scenarios compared to those trained by experienced trainers. There were no significant differences in the completion time in the remaining nine training tasks. Participants trained by novice and experienced trainers did not differ significantly with regard to the proportion of steps in a task flagged for critical errors, risky actions, or positive actions with the exception of the task "Man Down in Gown" (12.5% of steps graded by experienced trainers compared to 0 graded by novice trainers, P = 0.007). Discussion: The online train-the-trainer EVD course is effective at teaching novices to train HCWs in protective measures and can be accomplished swiftly.

Do children with high body mass indices have a higher incidence of emesis when undergoing ketamine sedation?

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine if overweight children are more likely than normal-weight children to require ondansetron when undergoing ketamine sedation in a pediatric emergency department. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 2 and 18 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of I or II who underwent intravenous procedural sedation with ketamine with or without midazolam for uncomplicated forearm fracture reduction in an urban pediatric emergency department during the year 2007 were included. A review of sedation records was conducted for each visit. Data collected included demographics, sedation time, and doses of medications administered. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using an estimated height for the 50th percentile for age and sex. In 2007, all patients underwent procedural sedation per protocol. Per protocol, patients did not prophylactically receive ondansetron during procedural sedations. RESULTS: During the study period, 141 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. Of these, 110 had an estimated BMI less than 25 kg/m; 31 had an estimated BMI of 25 kg/m or greater. Ten patients (7.1%) received ondansetron. Patients in the high-BMI group were more likely to have received ondansetron than those in the normal-BMI group (16.1% vs 4.5%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that pediatric patients with high BMIs are at greater risk for nausea or emesis during ketamine sedation. Clinicians should consider prophylactic administration of ondansetron to this group of patients before performing ketamine sedation.

Impact of disaster drills on caregiver perception and satisfaction in the pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess caregiver perception and satisfaction of a regional disaster drill in a pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: Caregivers of children receiving care during a 2-hour disaster drill were given a survey regarding perceived importance of the drill, waiting time to see a physician, service timeliness, impact on comfort, and overall recommendation of the ED. As a control, the survey was also given to caregivers a week before and after the drill. RESULTS: Caregivers on the drill date were more likely to consider drill conduction to be highly important (100% vs 82.9%, P < 0.045). Compared with the drill date, there were no significant differences in the perceived duration of waiting, impact on care, or likelihood to recommend the ED to others. CONCLUSIONS: In a single regional disaster drill, we found that caregivers feel that disaster drills are important and unlikely to impact care of children negatively. These findings can help support decision making by hospital administrators to commit personnel and resources to conduct necessary disaster drills involving children.

Learning to Beat the Shock Clock: A Low-Fidelity Simulation Board Game for Pediatric and Emergency Medicine Residents.

Introduction: Resident physicians may have difficulty with identifying and managing pediatric septic shock due to limited patient encounters. Simulation-based interventions can enhance competency. We developed a low-fidelity tabletop simulation game to teach pediatric septic shock and compared residents' knowledge of and comfort with recognition and management of septic shock. Methods: Pediatric and emergency medicine residents participated in an education session involving a low-fidelity, tabletop simulation in which they managed two simulated pediatric patients with septic shock. The two patients were a 12-year-old healthy male with cold shock due to a urinary tract infection and a 5-year-old female with a history of leukemia who developed warm shock due to pneumonia. Because this session was presented as a board game rather than high-fidelity simulation, learners focused on decision making rather than the mechanics of procedures. Residents completed a survey and a knowledge-based test before and after this session. Results: Twenty-three pediatric and nine emergency medicine residents participated. Correct responses for the preintervention test were 71%, compared with 83% postintervention. The difference in rates was 12% (95% confidence interval, -0.17 to -0.07; p < .0001). Residents rated this modality as being more useful than lectures or reading and as equivalent to bedside teaching and high-fidelity simulation. Discussion: Our pilot low-fidelity simulation improved resident knowledge and comfort with pediatric septic shock care. Further studies are needed to address the impact of low-fidelity simulations on patient outcomes.