Marc Auerbach

The use of simulation for pediatric training and assessment.

Purpose of review Simulation has been widely adopted as a training and assessment tool in medical education. Conventional teaching methods may be inadequate to properly train healthcare providers for rare but potentially lethal events in pediatrics such as trauma and respiratory arrest. Recent studies suggest pediatric acute care providers have limited exposure to critically ill patients and also lack the skills to manage them. Simulation has the potential to fill this educational void. This review will highlight the role of simulation as an educational and assessment tool, with a particular emphasis on retention of knowledge and skills. Recent findings Simulation is currently used as an assessment tool to provide ongoing feedback during training (formative assessment) and is gaining popularity as an adjunctive method for demonstrating competency (summative assessment). Recent literature demonstrates increased retention of knowledge and skills after simulation-based training in the areas of resuscitation, trauma, airway management, procedural training, team training, and disaster management. Summary Simulation is an effective training tool for pediatric acute care providers. Further research is necessary to develop validated performance assessment tools and demonstrate improvement in clinical outcomes after simulation training.

Designing and Conducting Simulation-Based Research

As simulation is increasingly used to study questions pertaining to pediatrics, it is important that investigators use rigorous methods to conduct their research. In this article, we discuss several important aspects of conducting simulation-based research in pediatrics. First, we describe, from a pediatric perspective, the 2 main types of simulation-based research: (1) studies that assess the efficacy of simulation as a training methodology and (2) studies where simulation is used as an investigative methodology. We provide a framework to help structure research questions for each type of research and describe illustrative examples of published research in pediatrics using these 2 frameworks. Second, we highlight the benefits of simulation-based research and how these apply to pediatrics. Third, we describe simulation-specific confounding variables that serve as threats to the internal validity of simulation studies and offer strategies to mitigate these confounders. Finally, we discuss the various types of outcome measures available for simulation research and offer a list of validated pediatric assessment tools that can be used in future simulation-based studies.

Neonatal intubation performance: room for improvement in tertiary neonatal intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE To describe neonatal tracheal intubation (TI) performance across five neonatal intensive care units. METHODS This prospective descriptive study was conducted at five level III neonatal intensive care units (NICU) between July 2010 and July 2011. TI performance data were collected using a standardized data collection instrument (provider, procedure, and patient characteristics) and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The primary outcome of interest was procedural success rate defined as a tube placed in the airway between the vocal cords that could be used to provide ventilation. RESULTS Forty-four percent of 455 TI attempts (203 patients) were successful. Attending physicians and 3rd year neonatal fellows had the highest success rates; 72.2% and 70%, respectively. Pediatric residents had the lowest success rate (20.3%). The median duration of attempts was 30s for residents, 25s for fellows, and 20s for neonatal attending physicians. The most common reasons cited for failure were inability to visualize the vocal cords (25%), patient decompensation (desaturation/bradycardia, 41%) and esophageal TI (19%). The duration of all TI attempts ranged from 5s to 180s and there was no difference between successful and failed attempts. Impending respiratory failure (46.5%) was the most common indication for TI. Patient factors (weight, gestational age, or number of previous TI attempts) were not associated with TI success. CONCLUSIONS Overall TI procedure success rates were poor. Providers with advanced training were more likely to be successful. Patient factors were not associated with TI success.

Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements

BackgroundSimulation-based research (SBR) is rapidly expanding but the quality of reporting needs improvement. For a reader to critically assess a study, the elements of the study need to be clearly reported. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for SBR by creating extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statements.MethodsAn iterative multistep consensus-building process was used on the basis of the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines. The consensus process involved the following: (1) developing a steering committee, (2) defining the scope of the reporting guidelines, (3) identifying a consensus panel, (4) generating a list of items for discussion via online premeeting survey, (5) conducting a consensus meeting, and (6) drafting reporting guidelines with an explanation and elaboration document.ResultsThe following 11 extensions were recommended for CONSORT: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background), item 5 (interventions), item 6 (outcomes), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 15 (baseline data), item 17 (outcomes/ estimation), item 20 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 25 (funding). The following 10 extensions were recommended for STROBE: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background/rationale), item 7 (variables), item 8 (data sources/measurement), item 12 (statistical methods), item 14 (descriptive data), item 16 (main results), item 19 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 22 (funding). An elaboration document was created to provide examples and explanation for each extension.ConclusionsWe have developed extensions for the CONSORT and STROBE Statements that can help improve the quality of reporting for SBR (Sim Healthcare 00:00-00, 2016).

Learn, see, practice, prove, do, maintain: an evidence-based pedagogical framework for procedural skill training in medicine.

Acquisition of competency in procedural skills is a fundamental goal of medical training. In this Perspective, the authors propose an evidence-based pedagogical framework for procedural skill training. The framework was developed based on a review of the literature using a critical synthesis approach and builds on earlier models of procedural skill training in medicine. The authors begin by describing the fundamentals of procedural skill development. Then, a six-step pedagogical framework for procedural skills training is presented: Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain. In this framework, procedural skill training begins with the learner acquiring requisite cognitive knowledge through didactic education (Learn) and observation of the procedure (See). The learner then progresses to the stage of psychomotor skill acquisition and is allowed to deliberately practice the procedure on a simulator (Practice). Simulation-based mastery learning is employed to allow the trainee to prove competency prior to performing the procedure on a patient (Prove). Once competency is demonstrated on a simulator, the trainee is allowed to perform the procedure on patients with direct supervision, until he or she can be entrusted to perform the procedure independently (Do). Maintenance of the skill is ensured through continued clinical practice, supplemented by simulation-based training as needed (Maintain). Evidence in support of each component of the framework is presented. Implementation of the proposed framework presents a paradigm shift in procedural skill training. However, the authors believe that adoption of the framework will improve procedural skill training and patient safety.

Repetitive pediatric simulation resuscitation training.

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of repetitive pediatric simulation (RPS) training (scenario-debriefing-scenario) to standard pediatric simulation (STN) training (scenario-debriefing). Methods: Pediatric and emergency medicine residents prospectively participated in simulated pediatric resuscitation training sessions in an in situ simulation room. Residents anonymously reported their knowledge, skills, and confidence after each session. Four learners and 2 faculty preceptors (1 pediatric emergency medicine attending physician and 1 pediatric emergency medicine fellow) participated in each session. Scenarios were performed on a high-fidelity simulator (SimBaby; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway), and video debriefing was used for all training sessions. Standard pediatric simulation was used in the initial 6 months of the study, whereas RPS was used in the second 6 months of the study. Results: One hundred fifteen subjects completed simulation sessions during the study period. The RPS group reported higher overall debriefing quality and were more likely to report that the simulation session was an excellent method of teaching. The RPS group reported greater improvement in knowledge and skills than did the STN group. Similar scores were reported for confidence, overall performance, stress levels, and realism of the simulator in both the STN and RPS groups. Conclusions: Feedback is a key feature of effective medical simulation. Repetitive pediatric simulation provides learners with a discrete opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills discussed during debriefing in an immediate second simulation session and thereby complete Kolbs experiential learning cycle. In this study, the RPS debriefing format was associated with higher self-reported knowledge and skills. The RPS group reported more positive attitudes toward simulation than the STN group.

Ketamine, propofol, and ketofol use for pediatric sedation.

Abstract The use of a combination of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department setting shows promise as an agent that may minimize adverse effects of ketamine or propofol as single agents. This article provides a summary of current literature regarding ketofol. It also reviews the comparative pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and dosing of ketamine, propofol, and ketofol as agents for procedural sedation and analgesia.

Interns' Success With Clinical Procedures in Infants After Simulation Training

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is used to teach residents. However, few studies have evaluated its clinical impact. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of an SBME session on pediatric interns’ clinical procedural success. METHODS: This randomized trial was conducted at 10 academic medical centers. Interns were surveyed on infant lumbar puncture (ILP) and child intravenous line placement (CIV) knowledge and watched audiovisual expert modeling of both procedures. Participants were randomized to SBME mastery learning for ILP or CIV and for 6 succeeding months reported clinical performance for both procedures. ILP success was defined as obtaining a sample on the first attempt with <1000 red blood cells per high-power field or fluid described as clear. CIV success was defined as placement of a functioning catheter on the first try. Each group served as the control group for the procedure for which they did not receive the intervention. RESULTS: Two-hundred interns participated (104 in the ILP group and 96 in the CIV group). Together, they reported 409 procedures. ILP success rates were 34% (31 of 91) for interns who received ILP mastery learning and 34% (25 of 73) for controls (difference: 0.2% [95% confidence interval: –0.1 to 0.1]). The CIV success rate was 54% (62 of 115) for interns who received CIV mastery learning compared with 50% (58 of 115) for controls (difference: 3% [95% confidence interval: –10 to 17]). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a single SBME mastery learning session was insufficient to affect pediatric interns’ subsequent procedural success.

Reporting Guidelines for Health Care Simulation Research

Introduction Simulation-based research (SBR) is rapidly expanding but the quality of reporting needs improvement. For a reader to critically assess a study, the elements of the study need to be clearly reported. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for SBR by creating extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statements. Methods An iterative multistep consensus-building process was used on the basis of the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines. The consensus process involved the following: (1) developing a steering committee, (2) defining the scope of the reporting guidelines, (3) identifying a consensus panel, (4) generating a list of items for discussion via online premeeting survey, (5) conducting a consensus meeting, and (6) drafting reporting guidelines with an explanation and elaboration document. Results The following 11 extensions were recommended for CONSORT: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background), item 5 (interventions), item 6 (outcomes), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 15 (baseline data), item 17 (outcomes/estimation), item 20 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 25 (funding). The following 10 extensions were recommended for STROBE: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background/rationale), item 7 (variables), item 8 (data sources/measurement), item 12 (statistical methods), item 14 (descriptive data), item 16 (main results), item 19 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 22 (funding). An elaboration document was created to provide examples and explanation for each extension. Conclusions We have developed extensions for the CONSORT and STROBE Statements that can help improve the quality of reporting for SBR.

An Intervention to Improve Pain Management in the Pediatric Emergency Department

Objective The objective of this study was to measure the impact of a structured intervention on pain management in a pediatric emergency department (ED). Methods Data were prospectively collected from children presenting to an urban tertiary care pediatric ED before and after intervention. Data were collected on the rate and timeliness of analgesic administration, the assessment and reassessment of pain, periprocedural anesthesia, and patient satisfaction. The intervention was developed by a multidisciplinary committee composed of physicians, nurses, and child life specialists and was focused on correcting deficiencies identified before intervention data collection. It consisted of a policy defining pain, pain-appropriate analgesia, age-appropriate pain assessment, and adequate preprocedural and periprocedural analgesia. Implementation occurred through provider education, organizational changes, and patient empowerment. Results One hundred two patients were enrolled during the preintervention period, and 109 were enrolled in the postintervention period. The percentage of patients in pain receiving any analgesic increased from 34% to 50%, an increase of 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%–30%). The median time to medication administration decreased from 97 minutes to 57 minutes, a decrease of 40 minutes (95% CI, −84 to 4 minutes). The percentage of children receiving preprocedural analgesia increased from 10% to 62%, an increase of 52% (95% CI, 12%–74%). Reassessment of pain by physicians increased from 6% to 76%, an increase of 70% (95% CI, 59%–78%). Conclusions A structured intervention, tailored to pain management shortcomings commonly found in the pediatric ED, can lead to improvements in the treatment and prevention of pain in childhood emergencies.