Part 16: education, implementation, and teams: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Optimizing the links in the Chain of Survival improves outcomes and saves lives. The use of evidence-based education and implementation strategies will allow organizations and communities to strengthen these links in the most effective and efficient manner.

Training and Assessing Critical Airway, Breathing, and Hemorrhage Control Procedures for Trauma Care: Live Tissue Versus Synthetic Models.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal teaching and assessment methods and models for emergency airway, breathing, and hemorrhage interventions are not currently known. The University of Minnesota Combat Casualty Training consortium (UMN CCTC) was formed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of synthetic training models (STMs) versus live tissue (LT) models. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of best in class STMs versus an anesthetized caprine (goat) model for training and assessing seven procedures: junctional hemorrhage control, tourniquet (TQ) placement, chest seal, needle thoracostomy (NCD), nasopharyngeal airway (NPA), tube thoracostomy, and cricothyrotomy (Cric). METHODS: Army combat medics were randomized to one of four groups: 1) LT trained-LT tested (LT-LT), 2) LT trained-STM tested (LT-STM), 3) STM trained-LT tested (STM-LT), and 4) STM trained-STM tested (STM-STM). Participants trained in small groups for 3 to 4 hours and were evaluated individually. LT-LT was the "control" to which other groups were compared, as this is the current military predeployment standard. The mean procedural scores (PSs) were compared using a pairwise t-test with a Dunnett's correction. Logistic regression was used to compare critical fails (CFs) and skipped tasks. RESULTS: There were 559 subjects included. Junctional hemorrhage control revealed no difference in CFs, but LT-tested subjects (LT-LT and STM-LT) skipped this task more than STM-tested subjects (LT-STM and STM-STM; p < 0.05), and STM-STM had higher PSs than LT-LT (p < 0.001). For TQ, both STM-tested groups (LT-STM and STM-STM) had more CFs than LT-LT (p < 0.001) and LT-STM had lower PSs than LT-LT (p < 0.05). No differences were seen for chest seal. For NCD, LT-STM had more CFs than LT-LT (p = 0.001) and lower PSs (p = 0.001). There was no difference in CFs for NPA, but all groups had worse PSs versus LT-LT (p < 0.05). For Cric, we were underpowered; STM-LT trended toward more CFs (p = 0.08), and STM-STM had higher PSs than LT-LT (p < 0.01). Tube thoracostomy revealed that STM-LT had higher CFs than LT-LT (p < 0.05), but LT-STM had lower PSs (p < 0.05). An interaction effect (making the subjects who trained and tested on different models more likely to CF) was only found for TQ, chest seal, and Cric; however, of these three procedures, only TQ demonstrated any significant difference in CF rates. CONCLUSION: Training on STM or LT did not demonstrate a difference in subsequent performance for five of seven procedures (junctional hemorrhage, TQ, chest seal, NPA, and NCD). Until STMs are developed with improved anthropomorphic and tissue fidelity, there may still be a role for LT for training tube thoracostomy and potentially Cric. For assessment, our STM appears more challenging for TQ and potentially for NCD than LT. For junctional hemorrhage, the increased "skips" with LT may be explained by the differences in anatomic fidelity. While these results begin to uncover the effects of training and assessing these procedures on various models, further study is needed to ascertain how well performance on an STM or LT model translates to the human model.

Literature Evidence on Live Animal Versus Synthetic Models for Training and Assessing Trauma Resuscitation Procedures.

There are many models currently used for teaching and assessing performance of trauma-related airway, breathing, and hemorrhage procedures. Although many programs use live animal (live tissue [LT]) models, there is a congressional effort to transition to the use of nonanimal- based methods (i.e., simulators, cadavers) for military trainees. We examined the existing literature and compared the efficacy, acceptability, and validity of available models with a focus on comparing LT models with synthetic systems. Literature and Internet searches were conducted to examine current models for seven core trauma procedures. We identified 185 simulator systems. Evidence on acceptability and validity of models was sparse. We found only one underpowered study comparing the performance of learners after training on LT versus simulator models for tube thoracostomy and cricothyrotomy. There is insufficient data-driven evidence to distinguish superior validity of LT or any other model for training or assessment of critical trauma procedures.

Validation of an Assessment Tool for Field Endotracheal Intubation.

OBJECTIVES: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is an important skill for all emergency providers; our ability to train and assess our learners is integral to providing optimal patient care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and discriminant validity of a novel field ETI assessment tool using a checklist-derived performance score (PS) and critical failure (CF) rate. METHODS: Forty-three participants (18 paramedic students, 11 paramedics, and 14 emergency physicians [EPs]) performed ETI during a simulated trauma scenario on a pseudo-ventilated cadaver. Each participant was assessed by two experienced raters. IRR was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Regarding discriminant validity, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze PSs and a χ2 test was used for CFs. Mean global rating scale (GRS) scores were compared using an analysis of variance. RESULTS: The ETI assessment tool had excellent IRR, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. There was a significant difference in PSs, CFs, and GRSs (p < 0.05) between cohorts. CONCLUSION: The novel field ETI assessment tool has excellent reliability among trained raters and discriminates between experienced ETI providers (EPs) and less experienced ETI performers using PSs, CFs, and GRSs on a fresh cadaveric model.

High fidelity case-based simulation debriefing: everything you need to know.

In this 30-minute talk, the authors take an in-depth look at how to debrief high-fidelity case-based simulation sessions, including discussion on debriefing theory, goals, approaches, and structure, as well as ways to create a supportive and safe learning environment, resulting in successful small group learning and self-reflection. Emphasis is placed on the "debriefing with good judgment" approach. Video clips of sample debriefing attempts, highlighting the "dos and don'ts" of simulation debriefing, are included. The goal of this talk is to provide you with the necessary tools and information to develop a successful and effective debriefing approach. There is a bibliography and a quick reference guide in Data Supplements S1 and S2 (available as supporting information in the online version of this paper).

Absolute and relative value of patient simulator features as perceived by medical undergraduates.

BACKGROUND: Patient simulators incorporate a range of technical features. An understanding of which features are most valuable and which may be less so is important for simulator design and utilization. In this study, we attempted to answer the question of whether or not certain simulator features are perceived by learners as more useful than others in achieving specified educational objectives. METHODS: The subjects were third and fourth year medical students participating in an Emergency Medicine Simulation Workshop (n = 97). Following the Workshop, subjects rated each of 13 simulator features on a 5-point scale from distracting to extremely useful in achieving specified educational objectives; and then identified the most and least useful features. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the scores of the most highly rated features (vital sign display, interactive voice, chest rise, and palpable pulse), and those of the features with the lowest ratings (abnormal breath sounds, prerecorded voice, IV arm, and heart tones) (4.75 vs. 3.93, P < 0.0001). Three features (heart tones, abnormal breath sounds, and prerecorded voice) were rated by more than one third of the students as distracting, not useful, or uncertain if useful. On the ranking scale, highly rated features tended to be identified as most useful, and those with the lowest ratings were more often ranked as least useful. There was a statistically significant (P < 0.0001) correlation between rating and rankings. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the perceived usefulness of patient simulator features. This has implications both for simulator design and for simulator-based education.