A randomized, controlled trial of in situ pediatric advanced life support recertification ("pediatric advanced life support reconstructed") compared with standard pediatric advanced life support recertification for ICU frontline providers*.

OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence shows poor retention of Pediatric Advanced Life Support provider skills. Frequent refresher training and in situ simulation are promising interventions. We developed a "Pediatric Advanced Life Support-reconstructed" recertification course by deconstructing the training into six 30-minute in situ simulation scenario sessions delivered over 6 months. We hypothesized that in situ Pediatric Advanced Life Support-reconstructed implementation is feasible and as effective as standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support recertification. DESIGN: A prospective randomized, single-blinded trial. SETTING: Single-center, large, tertiary PICU in a university-affiliated children's hospital. SUBJECTS: Nurses and respiratory therapists in PICU. INTERVENTIONS: Simulation-based modular Pediatric Advanced Life Support recertification training. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Simulation-based pre- and postassessment sessions were conducted to evaluate participants' performance. Video-recorded sessions were rated by trained raters blinded to allocation. The primary outcome was skill performance measured by a validated Clinical Performance Tool, and secondary outcome was behavioral performance measured by a Behavioral Assessment Tool. A mixed-effect model was used to account for baseline differences. Forty participants were prospectively randomized to Pediatric Advanced Life Support reconstructed versus standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support with no significant difference in demographics. Clinical Performance Tool score was similar at baseline in both groups and improved after Pediatric Advanced Life Support reconstructed (pre, 16.3 ± 4.1 vs post, 22.4 ± 3.9; p < 0.001), but not after standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support (pre, 14.3 ± 4.7 vs post, 14.9 ± 4.4; p =0.59). Improvement of Clinical Performance Tool was significantly higher in Pediatric Advanced Life Support reconstructed compared with standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support (p = 0.006). Behavioral Assessment Tool improved in both groups: Pediatric Advanced Life Support reconstructed (pre, 33.3 ± 4.5 vs post, 35.9 ± 5.0; p = 0.008) and standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support (pre, 30.5 ± 4.7 vs post, 33.6 ± 4.9; p = 0.02), with no significant difference of improvement between both groups (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: For PICU-based nurses and respiratory therapists, simulation-based "Pediatric Advanced Life Support-reconstructed" in situ training is feasible and more effective than standard Pediatric Advanced Life Support recertification training for skill performance. Both Pediatric Advanced Life Support recertification training courses improved behavioral performance.

Utilizing Competence-Based Simulation to Improve Orientation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: New graduate respiratory therapists (RTs), regardless of the degree program, receive limited preparation in neonatal/pediatric diseases and management. Experienced RTs typically have adult knowledge but limited exposure to pediatrics. We developed a program that included competence-based simulation to improve orientation success. METHODS: A 9-week orientation program curriculum with simulation-based competence assessment was developed to ensure all new hires gained knowledge and skills to perform pediatric clinical tasks. Each new hire individually completed the same simulation scenarios during the first week and last week of orientation. Curriculum changes were made over time based on performance in simulations and on-the-job knowledge and skills during and after orientation. Paired and unpaired t tests were used with P < .05 as significant. RESULTS: From January 2017-February 2020, the program had 3 updates. Noninvasive ventilation and decompensating patient scenarios were completed for all periods. Ninety-two new staff were oriented in period 1 = 29 (new graduate RTs 20, experienced RTs 9); period 2 = 17 (new graduate RTs 10, experienced RTs 7); period 3 = 24 (new graduate RTs 21, experienced RTs 3), and period 4 = 22 (new graduate RTs = 22). Remediation during orientation occurred in 15% of the staff. Seventy-one percent successfully advanced to ICU orientation after completion of the program. All staff improved scores between pre- versus post-simulations in all periods: mean difference ± SD period 1: new graduate RTs 32.0 ± 17.0, P < .001; experienced RTs 28.0 ± 18.9, P < .001; period 2: new graduate RTs 23.0 ± 15.2, P < .001; experienced RTs 29.0 ± 12.1, P < .001; period 3: new graduate RTs 26.0 ± 15.8, P < .001; experienced RTs 27.0 ± 15.1, P = .007; and period 4: new graduate RTs 19.0 ± 14.5, P < .001, paired t test. The scores between new graduate RTs and experienced RTs during post-simulation were not significantly different for period 1 (P = .35) but were significantly different for periods 2-4 (P = .040, unpaired t test). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a competence-based orientation program showed educational advancements and helped determine successful orientation completion.