Disparities and implicit bias in the management of low-risk febrile infants: a mixed methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The management of low-risk febrile infants presents a model population for exploring how implicit racial bias promotes inequitable emergency care for children who belong to racial, ethnic and language minority groups. Although widely used clinical standards guide the clinical care of febrile infants, there remains substantial variability in management strategies. Deviations from recommended care may be informed by the physician's assessment of the family's values, risk tolerance and access to supportive resources. However, in the fast-paced emergency setting, such assessments may be influenced by implicit racial bias. Despite significant research to inform the clinical care of febrile infants, there is a dearth of knowledge regarding health disparities and clinical guideline implementation. The proposed mixed methods approach will (1) quantify the extent of disparities by race, ethnicity and language proficiency and (2) explore the role of implicit bias in physician-patient communication when caring for this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: With 42 participating sites from the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee, we will conduct a multicenter, cross-sectional study of low-risk febrile infants treated in the emergency department (ED) and apply multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between (1) race and ethnicity and (2) limited English proficiency with the primary outcome, discharge to home without lumbar puncture or antibiotics. We will concurrently perform an interpretive study using purposive sampling to conduct individual semistructured interviews with (1) minority parents of febrile infants and (2) paediatric ED physicians. We will triangulate or compare perspectives to better elucidate disparities and bias in communication and medical decision-making. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. All participating sites in the multicenter analysis will obtain local institutional review board approval. The results of this study will be presented at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.

Simulation Saves the Day (and Patient).

Surgeons can use simulation to improve the safety of the systems they work within, around, because of, and despite. Health care is a complex adaptive system that can never be completely knowable; simulation can expose aspects of patient care delivery that are not necessarily evident prospectively, during planning, or retrospectively, during investigations or audits. The constraints of patient care processes and adaptive capacity of health care providers may become most evident during simulations conducted "in situ" using real teams and real equipment, in actual patient care locations.

A Validation Argument for a Simulation-Based Training Course Centered on Assessment, Recognition, and Early Management of Pediatric Sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Early recognition of sepsis remains one of the greatest challenges in medicine. Novice clinicians are often responsible for the recognition of sepsis and the initiation of urgent management. The aim of this study was to create a validity argument for the use of a simulation-based training course centered on assessment, recognition, and early management of sepsis in a laboratory-based setting. METHODS: Five unique simulation scenarios were developed integrating critical sepsis cues identified through qualitative interviewing. Scenarios were piloted with groups of novice, intermediate, and expert pediatric physicians. The primary outcome was physician recognition of sepsis, measured with an adapted situation awareness global assessment tool. Secondary outcomes were physician compliance with pediatric advanced life support (PALS) guidelines and early sepsis management (ESM) recommendations, measured by two internally derived tools. Analysis compared recognition of sepsis by levels of expertise and measured association of sepsis recognition with the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians were recruited, six per study group. Each physician completed three sepsis simulations. Sepsis was recognized in 19 (35%) of 54 simulations. The odds that experts recognized sepsis was 2.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.5-13.8] times greater than novices. Adjusted for severity, for every point increase in the PALS global performance score, the odds that sepsis was recognized increased by 11.3 (95% CI = 3.1-41.4). Similarly, the odds ratio for the PALS checklist score was 1.5 (95% CI = 0.8-2.6). Adjusted for severity and level of expertise, the odds of recognizing sepsis was associated with an increase in the ESM checklist score of 1.8 (95% CI = 0.9-3.6) and an increase in ESM global performance score of 4.1 (95% CI = 1.7-10.0). CONCLUSIONS: Although incomplete, evidence from initial testing suggests that the simulations of pediatric sepsis were sufficiently valid to justify their use in training novice pediatric physicians in the assessment, recognition, and management of pediatric sepsis.

Use of Simulation to Gauge Preparedness for Ebola at a Free-Standing Children's Hospital.

STATEMENT: On October 10, 2014, a health care worker exposed to Ebola traveled to Akron, OH, where she became symptomatic. The resulting local public health agencies and health care organization response was unequalled in our region. The day this information was announced, the emergency disaster response was activated at our hospital. The simulation center had 12 hours to prepare simulations to evaluate hospital preparedness should a patient screen positive for Ebola exposure. The team developed hybrid simulation scenarios using standardized patients, mannequin simulators, and task trainers to assess hospital preparedness in the emergency department, transport team, pediatric intensive care unit, and for interdepartmental transfers. These simulations were multidisciplinary and demonstrated gaps in the system that could expose staff to Ebola. The results of these simulations were provided rapidly to the administration. Further simulation cycles were used during the next 2 weeks to identify additional gaps and to evaluate possible solutions.

The impact of a daily pre-operative surgical huddle on interruptions, delays, and surgeon satisfaction in an orthopedic operating room: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this project was to implement a daily pre-operative huddle (briefing) for orthopedic cases and evaluate the impact of the daily huddle on surgeons' perceptions of interruptions and operative delays. METHODS: Baseline measurements on interruptions, delays, and questions were obtained. Then the daily pre-operative huddle was introduced. Surgeons completed a surgical outcomes worksheet for each day's cases. Outcomes evaluated were primarily interruptions and delays starting cases before and following introduction of the huddle. RESULTS: 19 baseline observations and 19 huddle-implemented observations of surgeon's days were assessed. Overall, surgeon satisfaction increased and fewer delays occurred after introduction of huddles. Interruptions decreased in all categories including equipment, antibiotics, planned procedure and side. Time required for a huddle was less than one minute per case. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, a daily pre-operative huddle improved the flow of a surgeon's day and satisfaction and indirectly provided indications of safety benefits by decreasing the number of interruptions and delays. Further studies in other surgical specialties should be conducted due to the promising results. Data was collected from three orthopedic surgeons in this phase; however, as a next step, data should be drawn from the rest of the orthopedic surgical team and other surgical subspecialties as well.

High-reliability emergency response teams in the hospital: improving quality and safety using in situ simulation training.

INTRODUCTION: In situ simulation training is a team-based training technique conducted on actual patient care units using equipment and resources from that unit, and involving actual members of the healthcare team. We describe our experience with in situ simulation training in a major children's medical centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In situ simulations were conducted using standardised scenarios approximately twice per month on inpatient hospital units on a rotating basis. Simulations were scheduled so that each unit participated in at least two in situ simulations per year. Simulations were conducted on a revolving schedule alternating on the day and night shifts and were unannounced. Scenarios were preselected to maximise the educational experience, and frequently involved clinical deterioration to cardiopulmonary arrest. RESULTS: We performed 64 of the scheduled 112 (57%) in situ simulations on all shifts and all units over 21 months. We identified 134 latent safety threats and knowledge gaps during these in situ simulations, which we categorised as medication, equipment, and/or resource/system threats. Identification of these errors resulted in modification of systems to reduce the risk of error. In situ simulations also provided a method to reinforce teamwork behaviours, such as the use of assertive statements, role clarity, performance of frequent updating, development of a shared mental model, performance of independent double checks of high-risk medicines, and overcoming authority gradients between team members. Participants stated that the training programme was effective and did not disrupt patient care. CONCLUSIONS: In situ simulations can identify latent safety threats, identify knowledge gaps, and reinforce teamwork behaviours when used as part of an organisation-wide safety programme.

Impact of multidisciplinary simulation-based training on patient safety in a paediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Cincinnati Children's Hospital is one of the busiest paediatric emergency departments (ED) in the USA; high volume, high acuity and frequent interruptions contribute to an increased risk for error. OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety in a paediatric ED by implementing a multidisciplinary, simulation-based curriculum emphasising teamwork and communication. METHODS: Subjects included all healthcare providers in the ED. Multidisciplinary teams participated in simulation-based training focused on teamwork and communication behaviours in critical clinical scenarios. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, tests of knowledge and evaluations of critical simulations and actual performance in the ED resuscitation bay were assessed. Methods to sustain improvements included mandatory participation of all new staff in simulation-based training and the introduction of routine in situ simulations. RESULTS: 289 participants attended the initial training. 151 participants attended the re-evaluation at a mean of 10.2 months later. Sustained improvements in knowledge and attitudes were demonstrated. Knowledge tests at baseline, postintervention and re-evaluation had scores of 86%, 96% and 93%, respectively. Friedman's test analysis of SAQ scores at baseline, postintervention and re-evaluation indicated significant attitude changes. The ED with a preintervention baseline of 2-3 patient safety events per year has now sustained more than 1000 days without a patient safety event. This improvement occurred even though the time required in initial simulation training has been condensed from 12 to 4 h. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation training is an effective tool to modify safety attitudes and teamwork behaviours in an ED. Sustaining cultural and behavioural changes requires repeated practice opportunities.

In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Implement and demonstrate feasibility of in situ simulations to identify latent safety threats (LSTs) at a higher rate than lab-based training, and reinforce teamwork training in a paediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: Multidisciplinary healthcare providers responded to critical simulated patients in an urban ED during all shifts. Unannounced in situ simulations were limited to 10 min of simulation and 10 min of debriefing, and were video recorded. A standardised debriefing template was used to assess LSTs. The primary outcome measure was the number and type of LSTs identified during the simulations. Secondary measures included: participants' assessment of impact on patient care and value to participants. Blinded video review using a modified Anaesthetists Non-Technical Skills scale was used to assess team behaviours. RESULTS: 218 healthcare providers responded to 90 in situ simulations conducted over 1 year. A total of 73 LSTs were identified; a rate of one every 1.2 simulations performed. In situ simulations were cancelled at a rate of 28% initially, but the cancellation rate decreased as training matured. Examples of threats identified include malfunctioning equipment and knowledge gaps concerning role responsibilities. 78% of participants rated the simulations as extremely valuable or valuable, while only 5% rated the simulation as having little or no value. Of those responding to a postsimulation survey, 77% reported little or no clinical impact. Video recordings did not indicate changes in non-technical skills during this time. CONCLUSIONS: In situ simulation is a practical method for the detection of LSTs and to reinforce team training behaviours. Embedding in situ simulation as a routine expectation positively affected operations and the safety climate in a high risk clinical setting.

Simulation to assess the safety of new healthcare teams and new facilities.

INTRODUCTION: : Our institution recently opened a satellite hospital including a pediatric emergency department. The staffing model at this facility does not include residents or subspecialists, a substantial difference from our main hospital. Our previous work and published reports demonstrate that simulation can identify latent safety threats (LSTs) in both new and established settings. Using simulation, our objective was to define optimal staff roles, refine scope of practice, and identify LSTs before facility opening. METHODS: : Laboratory simulations were used to define roles and scope of practice. After each simulation, teams were debriefed using video recordings. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index was completed by each participant to measure perceived workload. Simulations were scored for team behaviors by video reviewers using the Mayo High Performance Team Scale. Subsequent in situ simulations focused on identifying LSTs and monitoring for unintended consequences from changes made. RESULTS: : Twenty-four simulations were performed over 3 months before the hospital opening. Laboratory debriefing identified the need to modify provider responsibilities. National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index scores and debriefings demonstrated that the medication nurse had the greatest workload during resuscitations. Modifying medication delivery was deemed critical. Lower Mayo High Performance Team Scale scores, implying less teamwork, were noted during in situ simulations. In situ sessions identified 37 LSTs involving equipment, personnel, and resources. CONCLUSIONS: : Simulation can help determine provider workload, refine team responsibilities, and identify LSTs. This pilot project provides a template for evaluation of new teams and clinical settings before patient exposure.

Educational and research implications of portable human patient simulation in acute care medicine.

Advanced medical simulation has become widespread. One development, the adaptation of simulation techniques and manikin technologies for portable operation, is starting to impact the training of personnel in acute care fields such as emergency medicine (EM) and trauma surgery. Unencumbered by cables and wires, portable simulation programs mitigate several limitations of traditional (nonportable) simulation and introduce new approaches to acute care education and research. Portable simulation is already conducted across multiple specialties and disciplines. In situ medical simulations are those carried out within actual clinical environments, while off-site portable simulations take place outside of clinical practice settings. Mobile simulation systems feature functionality while moving between locations; progressive simulations are longer-duration events using mobile simulations that follow a simulated patient through sequential care environments. All of these variants have direct applications for acute care medicine. Unique training and investigative opportunities are created by portable simulation through four characteristics: 1) enhancement of experiential learning by reframing training inside clinical care environments, 2) improving simulation accessibility through delivery of training to learner locations, 3) capitalizing on existing care environments to maximize simulation realism, and 4) provision of improved training capabilities for providers in specialized fields. Research agendas in acute care medicine are expanded via portable simulation's introduction of novel topics, new perspectives, and innovative methodologies. Presenting opportunities and challenges, portable simulation represents an evolutionary progression in medical simulation. The use of portable manikins and associated techniques may increasingly complement established instructional measures and research programs at acute care institutions and simulation centers.

The use of high-dose epinephrine for patients with out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest refractory to prehospital interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if high-dose epinephrine (HDE) used during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest refractory to prehospital interventions improves return of spontaneous circulation, 24-hour survival, discharge survival, and neurological outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted between May 1991 and October 1996 to compare the effectiveness of HDE versus standard-dose epinephrine (SDE) in patients having out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest refractory to prehospital resuscitation efforts. Cardiopulmonary arrest was classified as "medical" or "traumatic." Two hundred thirty patients were enrolled in 7 pediatric emergency departments. Ages ranged from newborn to 22 years. Seventeen patients met exclusion criteria. Patients were assigned to receive HDE (0.1 mg/kg for the initial dose and 0.2 mg/kg for subsequent doses) or SDE (0.01 mg/kg). The main end points evaluated were return of spontaneous circulation, 24-hour survival, discharge survival, and neurological outcome. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven patients received HDE (32 trauma patients), and 86 patients received SDE (27 trauma patients). Among medical patients, 24 (25%) of 95 experienced return of spontaneous circulation in the HDE group as compared with 9 (15%) of 59 in the SDE group (P = 0.14, chi2 = 2.17, relative risk = 1.66 [0.83-3.31]). Sixteen (17%) of 95 HDE patients and 5 (8%) of 59 SDE patients survived at least 24 hours (P = 0.14, chi2 = 2.16, relative risk = 1.99 [0.77-5.14]). Nine survivors to discharge received HDE, and 2 received SDE (P = 0.21, Fisher exact test, relative risk = 2.75 [0.61-12.28]). There were no long-term survivors among the trauma patients. Eight of 11 long-term survivors had severe neurological outcomes defined by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (2/2 SDE, 6/9 HDE; P = 0.51, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSION: HDE does not improve or diminish return of spontaneous circulation, 24-hour survival, long-term survival, or neurological outcome compared with SDE in out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest.