ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Latin American clinical simulation has had an important development; there are no studies that characterize simulation centers and programs in the entire region. The aims of this work are to characterize the current state of simulation-based education in the health sciences, to determine the structure of Latin American simulation centers in terms of teaching, research, and continuing medical education (CME), as well as to determine the perception of quality based on international standards of simulation practices for the directors of Latin American centers. METHODS: A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional study with a demographic questionnaire and a Likert-type survey was conducted to the directors of the simulation centers found in Latin America. RESULTS: Four hundred eight simulation centers were documented, the survey was answered by 240 directors, and the data from 149 were complete responses on the 42 quality self-perception scale and considered valid on further analyses related to the quality of the programs. Most of the centers that responded correspond to Chile, Brazil, and Mexico (37.5%, 18.1%, 12.7%). 84% of the centers are university-based, and 71% of the centers are medium-sized, with less than 10 instructors (54%). The directors are mostly women (61.7%), medical doctors (50%), and nurses (40%), with clinical specialization (37%), master's degree (53%), and doctorate (13%). 75% have completed a simulation instructor course, and 6% have developed a fellowship. Most consider the maintenance of international quality standards to be relevant in their centers, mainly in reflective training techniques, ethical aspects, and adequate learning environments. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based education in health sciences has had an increasing development in Latin America, within a university environment, in an important academic specialization process that seeks to adhere to high-quality standards to improve training and development of clinical skills, human factors, and critical thinking. We recommend starting accreditation processes in Latin America and studies that measure the quality of simulation-based education in our region, based on objective observations more than in self-reporting.
ABSTRACT
Las emergencias pediátricas son poco frecuentes por lo que la enseñanza a través de la simulación se ha convertido en una estrategia metodológica valiosa que permite al médico enfrentarse a una situación similar a la realidad en un ambiente protegido y seguro, tanto para él como para el paciente.Describir los resultados de escenarios de alta fidelidad de emergencias pediátricas y el grado de satisfacción de los participantes.Participaron 81 alumnos en 11 jornadas.Los residentes logran realizar el manejo inicial de las emergencias, pero tienen dificultades con el tratamiento específico de cada algoritmo, la comunicación y el liderazgo, siendo éstos aspectos a reforzar.La mayoría de los residentes se mostraron totalmente satisfechos con la actividad, destacando en los comentarios el pedido de más simulaciones y cursos de habilidades psicosociales.
Pediatric emergencies are rare, so teaching through simulation has become a valuable methodological strategy that allows the doctor to face a situation similar to reality in a protected and safe environment, both for him and for the patient.Describe the results of high-fidelity scenarios of pediatric emergencies and the degree of satisfaction of the participants. 81 students participated in 11 days. Residents were ableto perform the initial management of emergencies, but have difficulties with the specific treatment of each algorithm, communication and leadership, these being aspects to be reinforced. Most of the residents were totally satisfied with the activity, highlighting in the comments the request for more simulations and psychosocial skills courses.
Subject(s)
Simulation Exercise , Education, Graduate , Pediatric Emergency MedicineABSTRACT
Introducción. El índice pediátrico de mortalidad 2 (Pediatric Index of Mortality 2; PIM2, por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los puntajes más utilizados para la predicción de la mortalidad en pacientes ingresados en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (UCIP) argentinas. El objetivo de este estudio fue validar el puntaje PIM2 en las UCIP integrantes del Programa de Calidad de Atención de la Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. Población y métodos. Estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, observacional, de corte transversal. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes de entre 1 mes y 16 años de edad, ingresados en las UCIP participantes entre el 01-01-2009 y el 31-122009. Se evaluó la discriminación y calibración del puntaje PIM2 en toda la población y en diferentes subgrupos (riesgo de mortalidad, edad, diagnósticos de ingreso). Resultados. Se incluyeron 2832 pacientes. El PIM2 predijo 246 muertes; sin embargo, fallecieron 297 pacientes (p <0,01). La razón de mortalidad estandarizada fue 1,20 (IC 95%: 1,01-1,43). El área bajo la curva ROC fue 0,84 (IC 95%: 0,82-0,86). Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y las predichas para toda la población y en los distintos intervalos de riesgo (χ² 71,02; df 8; p <0,001). También se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y esperadas en los pacientes adolescentes (37/22, p= 0,03) y en aquellos ingresados con patología respiratoria (105/81, p= 0,03). Conclusiones. El puntaje PIM2 permite diferenciar adecuadamente los pacientes que sobreviven de aquellos que fallecen. Sin embargo, subvalora el riesgo de muerte en forma global, especialmente en los pacientes adolescentes y en aquellos ingresados por causa respiratoria. Es fundamental considerar estas diferencias al interpretar los resultados.(AU)
.(AU)
ABSTRACT
Introducción. El índice pediátrico de mortalidad 2 (Pediatric Index of Mortality 2; PIM2, por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los puntajes más utilizados para la predicción de la mortalidad en pacientes ingresados en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (UCIP) argentinas. El objetivo de este estudio fue validar el puntaje PIM2 en las UCIP integrantes del Programa de Calidad de Atención de la Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. Población y métodos. Estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, observacional, de corte transversal. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes de entre 1 mes y 16 años de edad, ingresados en las UCIP participantes entre el 01-01-2009 y el 31-122009. Se evaluó la discriminación y calibración del puntaje PIM2 en toda la población y en diferentes subgrupos (riesgo de mortalidad, edad, diagnósticos de ingreso). Resultados. Se incluyeron 2832 pacientes. El PIM2 predijo 246 muertes; sin embargo, fallecieron 297 pacientes (p <0,01). La razón de mortalidad estandarizada fue 1,20 (IC 95%: 1,01-1,43). El área bajo la curva ROC fue 0,84 (IC 95%: 0,82-0,86). Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y las predichas para toda la población y en los distintos intervalos de riesgo (χ² 71,02; df 8; p <0,001). También se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y esperadas en los pacientes adolescentes (37/22, p= 0,03) y en aquellos ingresados con patología respiratoria (105/81, p= 0,03). Conclusiones. El puntaje PIM2 permite diferenciar adecuadamente los pacientes que sobreviven de aquellos que fallecen. Sin embargo, subvalora el riesgo de muerte en forma global, especialmente en los pacientes adolescentes y en aquellos ingresados por causa respiratoria. Es fundamental considerar estas diferencias al interpretar los resultados.
Introduction. The Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) is one of the most commonly used scoring systems to predict mortality in patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Argentina. The objective of this study was to validate the PIM2 score in PICUs participating in the Quality of Care Program promoted by the Argentine Society of Intensive Care.Population and Methods. Multicenter, prospective, observational, cross-sectional study.All patients between 1 month and 16 years old admitted to participating PICUs between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009 were included. The discrimination and calibration of the PIM2 score were assessed in the entire population and in different subgroups (risk of mortality, age, diagnoses on admission).Results. Two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two patients were included. PIM2 predicted 246 deaths; however, 297 patients died (p < 0.01). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.43). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). Statistically significant differences were detected between the observed and the predicted mortality for the entire population and for the different risk intervals (χ²: 71.02, df: 8, p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found between observed and predicted mortality in adolescent patients (37/22, p = 0.03) and in those hospitalized due to respiratory disease (105/81, p = 0.03).Conclusions. The PIM2 score adequately discriminates survivors from non-survivors. However, it underscores the overall risk of death, especially in adolescent patients and those hospitalized due to respiratory disease. It is critical to take such differences into account when interpreting results.
Subject(s)
Humans , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Pediatrics , Severity of Illness Index , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric , Mortality , BenchmarkingABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) is one of the most commonly used scoring systems to predict mortality in patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Argentina. The objective of this study was to validate the PIM2 score in PICUs participating in the Quality of Care Program promoted by the Argentine Society of Intensive Care. POPULATION AND METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. All patients between 1 month and 16 years old admitted to participating PICUs between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009 were included. The discrimination and calibration of the PIM2 score were assessed in the entire population and in different subgroups (risk of mortality, age, diagnoses on admission). RESULTS: Two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two patients were included. PIM2 predicted 246 deaths; however, 297 patients died (p < 0.01). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.43). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). Statistically significant differences were detected between the observed and the predicted mortality for the entire population and for the different risk intervals (χ2: 71.02, df: 8, p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found between observed and predicted mortality in adolescent patients (37/22, p = 0.03) and in those hospitalized due to respiratory disease (105/81, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The PIM2 score adequately discriminates survivors from non-survivors. However, it underscores the overall risk of death, especially in adolescent patients and those hospitalized due to respiratory disease. It is critical to take such differences into account when interpreting results.