A Standardized Handoff Simulation Promotes Recovery From Auditory Distractions in Resident Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing use of training simulations to teach and assess resident handoffs, simulations that approximate realistic hospital conditions with distractions are lacking. This study explores the effects of a novel simulation-based training intervention on resident handoff performance in the face of prevalent hospital interruptions. METHODS: After a preliminary educational module, entering postgraduate year 1 residents (interns) completed one of the following three handoff simulations: (1) no interruption, (2) hospital noise, or (3) noise and pager interruptions. Trained receivers rated interns using an evidence-based Handoff Behaviors Checklist and a previously validated Handoff Mini-Clinical Examination Exercise instrument. RESULTS: Of 127 eligible interns, 125 (98.4%) completed an online preparatory module and a handoff simulation. Interns receiving auditory interruptions were less likely to be heard adequately (48.8% noise and 71.8% noise + pager vs. 100.0% uninterrupted, P < 0.001) and scored lower on establishing appropriate handoff settings (5.7 ± 2.3 noise and 6.2 ± 1.8 noise + pager vs. 8.0 ± 0.8 uninterrupted, P < 0.001). Interns receiving noise only shared a written sign-out document more effectively (71.1% vs. 30.2% uninterrupted and 43.6% noise + pager, P < 0.001). There were no differences in averaged performance metrics on the Handoff Behaviors Checklist. DISCUSSION: While common hospital interruptions created nonideal circumstances for the handoff, interns receiving interruptions were rated similarly and recovered effectively. However, interns exposed to noise only used the written sign-out form more actively. Our findings suggest that this intervention was successful in promoting handoff proficiency despite exposure to common but significant hospital interruptions.

Use of Simulation to Assess Incoming Interns' Recognition of Opportunities to Choose Wisely.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing healthcare costs, training on cost-consciousness is lacking in graduate medical education (GME). Medical centers must consider how best to incorporate value-based training into their GME curricula. OBJECTIVE: To incorporate low-value principles into an existing GME simulation exercise and assess incoming interns' recognition of low-value care. METHODS: Choosing Wisely™ lists were reviewed to identify 4 low-value hazards to be embedded into a simulated hospital room in addition to the 8 patient safety hazards used previously. Interns were given 10 minutes to independently review a mock chart and list all hazards they identified in the simulation. Interns completed a short survey on their prior training in medical school and a follow-up survey one month into internship. 𝑡 tests used to compare identification of low-value vs safety hazards and to associate performance with prior training. RESULTS: The mean percentage of hazards correctly identified was 50.4% (standard deviation [SD] 11.8%). Interns identified significantly fewer low-value hazards (mean 19.2%, SD 18.6%) than safety hazards (mean 66.0%, SD 16.0%; 𝑃 < .001). For example, while 96% of interns identified the hand hygiene hazard, only 6% identified the unnecessary blood transfusion and none identified the unnecessary stress ulcer prophylaxis. Interns who self-reported as confident in their ability to identify hazards were not any more likely to correctly identify hazards than those who were not confident. CONCLUSIONS: The "Room of Horrors" simulation revealed poor awareness of low-value care among interns. The simulation highlights a promising model for the prioritization and inclusion of value-based experiential training in GME.

Patient safety room of horrors: a novel method to assess medical students and entering residents' ability to identify hazards of hospitalisation.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety curricula in undergraduate medical education (UME) are often didactic format with little focus on skills training. Despite recent focus on safety, practical training in residency education is also lacking. Assessments of safety skills in UME and graduate medical education (GME) are generally knowledge, and not application-focused. We aimed to develop and pilot a safety-focused simulation with medical students and interns to assess knowledge regarding hazards of hospitalisation. METHODS: A simulation demonstrating common hospital-based safety threats was designed. A case scenario was created including salient patient information and simulated safety threats such as the use of upper-extremity restraints and medication errors. After entering the room and reviewing the mock chart, learners were timed and asked to identify and document as many safety hazards as possible. Learner satisfaction was assessed using constructed-response evaluation. Descriptive statistics, including per cent correct and mean correct hazards, were performed. RESULTS: All 86 third-year medical students completed the encounter. Some hazards were identified by a majority of students (fall risk, 83% of students) while others were rarely identified (absence of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, 13% of students). Only 5% of students correctly identified pressure ulcer risk. 128 of 131 interns representing 49 medical schools participated in the GME implementation. Incoming interns were able to identify a mean of 5.1 hazards out of the 9 displayed (SD 1.4) with 40% identifying restraints as a hazard, and 20% identifying the inappropriate urinary catheter as a hazard. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation showcasing safety hazards was a feasible and effective way to introduce trainees to safety-focused content. Both students and interns had difficulty identifying common hazards of hospitalisation. Despite poor performance, learners appreciated the interactive experience and its clinical utility.

Teaching professionalism in graduate medical education: What is the role of simulation?

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the literature concerning simulation-based teaching and assessment of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education professionalism competencies to elucidate best practices and facilitate further research. METHODS: A systematic review of English literature for "professionalism" and "simulation(s)" yielded 697 abstracts. Two independent raters chose abstracts that (1) focused on graduate medical education, (2) described the simulation method, and (3) used simulation to train or assess professionalism. Fifty abstracts met the criteria, and seven were excluded for lack of relevant information. The raters, 6 professionals with medical education, simulation, and clinical experience, discussed 5 of these articles as a group; they calibrated coding and applied further refinements, resulting in a final, iteratively developed evaluation form. The raters then divided into 2 teams to read and assess the remaining articles. Overall, 15 articles were eliminated, and 28 articles underwent final analysis. RESULTS: Papers addressed a heterogeneous range of professionalism content via multiple methods. Common specialties represented were surgery (46.4%), pediatrics (17.9%), and emergency medicine (14.3%). Sixteen articles (57%) referenced a professionalism framework; 14 (50%) incorporated an assessment tool; and 17 (60.7%) reported debriefing participants, though in limited detail. Twenty-three (82.1%) articles evaluated programs, mostly using subjective trainee reports. CONCLUSION: Despite early innovation, reporting of simulation-based professionalism training and assessment is nonstandardized in methods and terminology and lacks the details required for replication. We offer minimum standards for reporting of future professionalism-focused simulation training and assessment as well as a basic framework for better mapping proper simulation methods to the targeted domain of professionalism.

A theme-based hybrid simulation model to train and evaluate emergency medicine residents.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to design an integrated theme-based hybrid simulation experience to educate and evaluate emergency medicine (EM) residents, to measure the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies using this simulation model, to measure the impact of the simulation experience on resident performance on written tests, and to measure resident satisfaction with this simulation experience. METHODS: A theme-based hybrid simulation model that takes advantage of multiple simulation modalities in a concentrated session was developed and executed to both educate and evaluate EM residents. Simulation days took place at an integrated simulation center and replaced one 5-hour didactic block per quarter. Modified competency checklists were used to evaluate residents based on ACGME competencies. Written tests were administered before, during, and after simulation days. Residents were given the opportunity to evaluate the simulation days using standard residency program evaluation tools. RESULTS: The model was proven feasible. Core competencies were measured using the model, which was executed on four occasions in 2007. Most residents met expectations based on objective checklist criteria and subjective assessment by an observing faculty member. Data from the written tests showed no overall difference in scores measured before, during, or after the simulation days. The simulation model was rated highly useful by the residents. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of a highly developed simulation center and an organized, theme-based, hybrid simulation model that takes advantage of multiple simulation modalities, the authors were able to successfully develop an educational model to both train and evaluate EM residents with a high degree of resident satisfaction.