Immersive distance simulation: Exploring the educational impact of stereoscopic extended reality (XR) video in remote learning environments.

What was the educational challenge?There is a growing need for healthcare simulation options when local expertise or resources are not available. To connect instructors with remote learners, current options for distance simulation are typically limited to videoconferencing on desktop computers or mobile devices, which may not fully capture the complexity of clinical scenarios.What was the solution?Extended reality (XR) technology may provide a more immersive and realistic distance healthcare simulation experience compared to traditional videoconferencing options. Unlike computer- or phone-based video calls, stereoscopic video in XR provides a sense of depth that may increase spatial understanding and engagement in distance simulation.How was the solution implemented?We investigated the impact of XR for synchronous distance simulation compared to traditional desktop-based videoconferencing in Emergency Medicine (EM) resident training for an obstetrical emergency. A randomized controlled experiment was conducted with half of the residents using XR and half using computers to participate in the simulation.What lessons were learned that are relevant to a wider global audience?There was an unanticipated interaction between postgraduate year and condition such that performance in the XR condition was superior for first year residents, while this was reversed for more experienced residents. This indicates that the benefits of XR might be dependent on participant characteristics, such as learner level.What are the next steps?We plan to extend this research to clarify characteristics of learners and tasks that are important determinants of differences in outcomes between stereoscopic XR versus traditional videoconference displays.

Attending Physician Adherence to a 29-Component Central Venous Catheter Bundle Checklist During Simulated Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Central venous catheter insertions may lead to preventable adverse events. Attending physicians' central venous catheter insertion skills are not assessed routinely. We aimed to compare attending physicians' simulated central venous catheterinsertion performance to published competency standards. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of attending physicians' simulated internal jugular and subclavian central venous catheter insertion skills versus a historical comparison group of residents who participated in simulation training. SETTING: Fifty-eight Veterans Affairs Medical Centers from February 2014 to December 2014 during a 2-day simulation-based education curriculum and two academic medical centers in Chicago. SUBJECTS: A total of 108 experienced attending physicians and 143 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using a previously published central venous catheter insertion skills checklist, we compared Veterans Affairs Medical Centers attending physicians' simulated central venous catheter insertion performance to the same simulated performance by internal medicine and emergency medicine residents from two academic centers. Attending physician performance was compared to residents' baseline and posttest (after simulation training) performance. Minimum passing scores were set previously by an expert panel. Attending physicians performed higher on the internal jugular (median, 75.86% items correct; interquartile range, 68.97-86.21) and subclavian (median, 83.00%; interquartile range, 59.00-86.21) assessments compared to residents' internal jugular (median, 37.04% items correct; interquartile range, 22.22-68.97) and subclavian (median, 33.33%; interquartile range, 0.00-70.37; both p < 0.001) baseline assessments. Overall simulated performance was poor because only 12 of 67 attending physicians (17.9%) met or exceeded the minimum passing score for internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and only 11 of 47 (23.4%) met or exceeded the minimum passing score for subclavian central venous catheter insertion. Resident posttest performance after simulation training was significantly higher than attending physician performance (internal jugular: median, 96%; interquartile range, 93.10-100.00; subclavian: median, 100%; interquartile range, 96.00-100.00; both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates highly variable simulated central venous catheter insertion performance among a national cohort of experienced attending physicians. Hospitals, healthcare systems, and governing bodies should recognize that even experienced physicians require periodic clinical skill assessment and retraining.

SimWars.

BACKGROUND: Simulation use for training residents has become an expectation in emergency medicine in order to improve the educational dimensions of cognitive knowledge, critical thinking, psychomotor skills, and clinical performance. DISCUSSION: This article is a descriptive piece highlighting a novel group education format-"SimWars." The keys to a successful SimWars competition, including descriptions of necessary personnel and tips on effective case development, as well as lessons learned from its development and implementation, are described. After reading this article, educators will have the background necessary to implement their own simulation-enhanced training sessions. CONCLUSIONS: SimWars gives educators an opportunity to watch the decision-making process of the learners as they manage simulated complex scenarios in a cooperative competitive environment.

Cutting costs while maintaining quality: how the VA has leveraged simulation.

Simulation training in the Department of Veterans Affairs has saved money and improved outcomes and is now being used throughout the organization.

Comparing Capabilities of Simulation Modalities for Training Combat Casualty Care: Perspectives of Combat Medics.

INTRODUCTION: Combat casualty care requires learning a complex set of skills to treat patients in challenging situations, including resource scarce environments, multiple casualty incidents, and care under fire. To train the skills needed to respond efficiently and appropriately to these diverse conditions, instructors employ a wide array of simulation modalities. Simulation modalities for medical training include manikins, task trainers, standardized patient actors (i.e., role players), computer or extended reality simulations (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality), cadavers, and live tissue training. Simulation modalities differ from one another in multiple attributes (e.g., realism, availability). The purpose of this study was to compare capabilities across simulation modalities for combat casualty care from the perspective of experienced military medics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To provide a more complete understanding of the relative merits and limitations of modalities, military combat medics (N = 33) were surveyed on the capabilities of simulation modalities during a 5-day technical experimentation event where they observed medical simulations from industry developers. The survey asked them to rate each of eleven modalities on each of seven attributes. To elicit additional context for the strengths, limitations, and unique considerations of using each modality, we also collected open-ended comments to provide further insight on when and how to use specific simulation modalities. RESULTS: Results showed differences among the simulation modalities by attribute. Cadavers, role play, moulage, and live tissue all received high ratings on two or more attributes. However, there was no modality that was rated uniformly superior to the others. Instead, modalities appear to have unique strengths and limitations depending on the training context and objectives. For example, cadavers were seen as highly realistic, but not very reusable. CONCLUSIONS: The study furthers our understanding of simulation modalities for medical training by providing insight from combat medics on the benefits, limitations, and considerations for implementing different modalities depending on the training context. These results may be helpful to instructors in selecting modalities for their programs.

DebriefLive: A Pilot Study of a Virtual Faculty Development Tool for Debriefing.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of healthcare simulation learning relies heavily on effective debriefers. Traditional methods of faculty development in debriefing lack a structured approach to achieve expertise via graduated and reflective practice. METHODS: The Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN) developed DebriefLive, a virtual teaching environment, bringing together faculty and participant debriefers from across the Veterans Health Administration. Recorded simulation sessions were viewed followed by the opportunity for participant debriefers to debrief virtual learners. Participant debriefers were then provided structured and objective debriefings of the debriefings with the added opportunity for immediate practice. Program evaluation data for the pilot sessions were collected via electronic survey including a mix of Likert scale questions as well as short answer responses. RESULTS: On a 7-point Likert scale, participant debriefers (n = 15) rated the content as effective (mean = 6.67, SD = 0.47) and appropriate to their level (mean = 6.47, SD = 0.47). The technology of video-based scenarios (mean = 6.6, SD = 0.61), followed by avatar-based debriefing sessions (mean = 6.6, SD = 0.8), was felt to be accurate and appropriate. All participants would agree or strongly agree with recommending this training program to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation instructors and fellows across the spectrum of the Veterans Health Administration found the innovative computer-based faculty development program DebriefLive acceptable as well as effective in increasing self-efficacy in debriefing. DebriefLive is an innovative and potentially disruptive tool, combining best practices in simulation theory and virtual technologies, for the training and assessment of debriefers.

Healthcare Providers' Awareness and Perceptions of Competency Requirements in Central Venous Catheter Insertion.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background Studies show that medical residents do not feel comfortable and lack the skills and confidence to perform common bedside procedures. Regulatory bodies often require a set number of procedures to determine resident competence, yet medical providers' knowledge of competency guidelines are less well known. This study aimed to qualitatively assess existing practices relevant to documentation of competency in central venous catheter (CVC) insertion and explore healthcare providers' awareness and perceptions of those practices at their institutions. Methods The authors performed a qualitative study at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) from February to December 2014 as part of a larger project related to the dissemination of a simulation-based CVC insertion curriculum. Two authors conducted interviews with hospital staff (including attending physicians, nurses, and residents) at selected VAMCs. Recordings of interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a grounded theory approach and constant comparative techniques. Results Twenty-six participants were interviewed at six VAMCs. Participants reported varying perspectives regarding their institutions' policies about CVC insertion. Four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of institutional policy; (2) competency by numbers; (3) documentation of competency; and (4) perceptions of competency measures. Participants reported concern about the reliability of these policies and measures of competence. Conclusions This study demonstrates that healthcare providers' knowledge and perceptions about institutional requirements for procedural competency vary widely. Our findings suggest the need for establishment of consistent competency policies based on evidence-based practices, and highlight the need for increased communication regarding individual institutional policies. Integration of rigorous simulation-based education, implemented consistently across institutions, can provide a reliable mechanism to train and assess procedural competence and ensure patient safety.

Communicating Value in Simulation: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Return on Investment.

Value-based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and the economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often-disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost-effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators. At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes," our breakout session critically evaluated the cost-benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost-benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program.

Communicating Value in Simulation: Cost Benefit Analysis and Return on Investment.

Value-based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often-disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators. At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes", our breakout session critically evaluated the cost benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Template of Events for Applied and Critical Healthcare Simulation (TEACH Sim): a tool for systematic simulation scenario design.

Simulation-based training (SBT) affords practice opportunities for improving the quality of clinicians' technical and nontechnical skills. However, the development of practice scenarios is a process plagued by a set of challenges that must be addressed for the full learning potential of SBT to be realized. Scenario templates are useful tools for assisting with SBT and navigating its inherent challenges. This article describes existing SBT templates, explores considerations in choosing an appropriate template, and introduces the Template of Events for Applied and Critical Healthcare Simulation (TEACH Sim) as a tool for facilitating the formation of practice scenarios in accordance with an established evidence-based simulation design methodology. TEACH Sim's unique contributions are situated within the landscape of previously existing templates, and each of its component sections is explained in detail.

The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence?

Medical schools and residencies are currently facing a shift in their teaching paradigm. The increasing amount of medical information and research makes it difficult for medical education to stay current in its curriculum. As patients become increasingly concerned that students and residents are "practicing" on them, clinical medicine is becoming focused more on patient safety and quality than on bedside teaching and education. Educators have faced these challenges by restructuring curricula, developing small-group sessions, and increasing self-directed learning and independent research. Nevertheless, a disconnect still exists between the classroom and the clinical environment. Many students feel that they are inadequately trained in history taking, physical examination, diagnosis, and management. Medical simulation has been proposed as a technique to bridge this educational gap. This article reviews the evidence for the utility of simulation in medical education. We conducted a MEDLINE search of original articles and review articles related to simulation in education with key words such as simulation, mannequin simulator, partial task simulator, graduate medical education, undergraduate medical education, and continuing medical education. Articles, related to undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education were used in the review. One hundred thirteen articles were included in this review. Simulation-based training was demonstrated to lead to clinical improvement in 2 areas of simulation research. Residents trained on laparoscopic surgery simulators showed improvement in procedural performance in the operating room. The other study showed that residents trained on simulators were more likely to adhere to the advanced cardiac life support protocol than those who received standard training for cardiac arrest patients. In other areas of medical training, simulation has been demonstrated to lead to improvements in medical knowledge, comfort in procedures, and improvements in performance during retesting in simulated scenarios. Simulation has also been shown to be a reliable tool for assessing learners and for teaching topics such as teamwork and communication. Only a few studies have shown direct improvements in clinical outcomes from the use of simulation for training. Multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of simulation in the teaching of basic science and clinical knowledge, procedural skills, teamwork, and communication as well as assessment at the undergraduate and graduate medical education levels. As simulation becomes increasingly prevalent in medical school and resident education, more studies are needed to see if simulation training improves patient outcomes.

The use of simulation in the education of emergency care providers for cardiac emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Traditional methods of educating residents and medical students using lectures and bedside teaching are no longer sufficient. Today's generation of trainees grew up in a multimedia environment, learning on the World Wide Web instead of reading books. It is unreasonable to expect the educational model developed 50 years ago to be able to adequately train the medical students and residents of today. One area that is difficult to teach is the diagnosis and management of the critically ill patient, specifically cardiac emergencies and cardiac arrest. RATIONALE: In the management of a patient in cardiac arrest, it is sometimes the least experienced provider giving chest compressions, intubating the patient, and running the code during the most crucial moment in that patient's life. METHODS: Patient simulation has emerged as an educational tool that allows the learner to practice patient care, away from the bedside, in a controlled and safe environment, giving the learner the opportunity to practice the educational principles of deliberate practice and self-reflection. We performed a qualitative literature review of the uses of simulators in medical training with a focus on their current and potential applications in cardiac emergencies.

Defining systems expertise: effective simulation at the organizational level--implications for patient safety, disaster surge capacity, and facilitating the systems interface.

The Institute of Medicine's report "To Err is Human" identified simulation as a means to enhance safety in the medical field, just as flight simulation is used to improve the aviation industry. Yet, while there is evidence that simulation may improve task performance, there is little evidence that simulation actually improves patient outcome. Similarly, simulation is currently used to model teamwork-communication skills for disaster management and critical events, but little research or evidence exists to show that simulation improves disaster response or facilitates intersystem or interagency communication. Simulation ranges from the use of standardized patient encounters to robot-mannequins to computerized virtual environments. As such, the field of simulation covers a broad range of interactions, from patient-physician encounters to that of the interfaces between larger systems and agencies. As part of the 2008 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on the Science of Simulation, our group sought to identify key research questions that would inform our understanding of simulation's impact at the organizational level. We combined an online discussion group of emergency physicians, an extensive review of the literature, and a "public hearing" of the questions at the Consensus Conference to establish recommendations. The authors identified the following six research questions: 1) what objective methods and measures may be used to demonstrate that simulator training actually improves patient safety? 2) How can we effectively feedback information from error reporting systems into simulation training and thereby improve patient safety? 3) How can simulator training be used to identify disaster risk and improve disaster response? 4) How can simulation be used to assess and enhance hospital surge capacity? 5) What methods and outcome measures should be used to demonstrate that teamwork simulation training improves disaster response? and 6) How can the interface of systems be simulated? We believe that exploring these key research questions will improve our understanding of how simulation affects patient safety, disaster surge capacity, and intersystem and interagency communication.

National growth in simulation training within emergency medicine residency programs, 2003-2008.

OBJECTIVES: The use of medical simulation has grown dramatically over the past decade, yet national data on the prevalence and growth of use among individual specialty training programs are lacking. The objectives of this study were to describe the current role of simulation training in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs and to quantify growth in use of the technology over the past 5 years. METHODS: In follow-up of a 2006 study (2003 data), the authors distributed an updated survey to program directors (PDs) of all 179 EM residency programs operating in early 2008 (140 Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education [ACGME]-approved allopathic programs and 39 American Osteopathic Association [AOA]-accredited osteopathic programs). The brief survey borrowed from the prior instrument, was edited and revised, and then distributed at a national PDs meeting. Subsequent follow-up was conducted by e-mail and telephone. The survey concentrated on technology-enhanced simulation modalities beyond routine static trainers or standardized patient-actors (high-fidelity mannequin simulation, part-task/procedural simulation, and dynamic screen-based simulation). RESULTS: A total of 134 EM residency programs completed the updated survey, yielding an overall response rate of 75%. A total of 122 (91%) use some form of simulation in their residency training. One-hundred fourteen (85%) specifically use mannequin-simulators, compared to 33 (29%) in 2003 (p < 0.001). Mannequin-simulators are now owned by 58 (43%) of the programs, whereas only 9 (8%) had primary responsibility for such equipment in 2003 (p < 0.001). Fifty-eight (43%) of the programs reported that annual resident simulation use now averages more than 10 hours per year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of medical simulation has grown significantly in EM residency programs in the past 5 years and is now widespread among training programs across the country.

Simulation in graduate medical education 2008: a review for emergency medicine.

Health care simulation includes a variety of educational techniques used to complement actual patient experiences with realistic yet artificial exercises. This field is rapidly growing and is widely used in emergency medicine (EM) graduate medical education (GME) programs. We describe the state of simulation in EM resident education, including its role in learning and assessment. The use of medical simulation in GME is increasing for a number of reasons, including the limitations of the 80-hour resident work week, patient dissatisfaction with being "practiced on," a greater emphasis on patient safety, and the importance of early acquisition of complex clinical skills. Simulation-based assessment (SBA) is advancing to the point where it can revolutionize the way clinical competence is assessed in residency training programs. This article also discusses the design of simulation centers and the resources available for developing simulation programs in graduate EM education. The level of interest in these resources is evident by the numerous national EM organizations with internal working groups focusing on simulation. In the future, the health care system will likely follow the example of the airline industry, nuclear power plants, and the military, making rigorous simulation-based training and evaluation a routine part of education and practice.