Yaron Munz

Using advanced simulation for recognition and correction of gaps in airway and breathing management skills in prehospital trauma care

In this prospective study, we used two full-scale prehospital trauma scenarios (severe chest injury and severe head injury) and checklists of specific actions, reflecting essential actions for a safe treatment and successful outcome, were used to assess performance of postinternship physician graduates of the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. In the first 36 participants, simulated training followed basic training in airway and breathing management, whereas in the next 36 participants, 45 min of simulative training in airway management using the Air-Man simulator (Laerdal, Norway) were added before performing the study scenarios. The content of training was based on common mistakes performed by participants of the first group. After the change in training, the number of participants not performing cricoid pressure or not using medication during intubation decreased from 55% (20 of 36) to 8% (3 of 36) and from 42% (15 of 36) to 11% (4 of 36), respectively (P < 0.05). The number of participants not holding the tube properly before fixation decreased from 28% (10 of 36) to 0% (0 of 36) (P < 0.05). In the severe head trauma scenario, performed by 15 of 36 participants in each group, the incidence of mistakes in the management of secondary airway or breathing problems after initial intubation decreased from 60% (9 of 15) to 0% (0 of 15) (P < 0.05). The present study highlights problems in prehospital trauma management, as provided by the ATLS course. It seems that graduates may benefit from simulation-based airway and breathing training. However, clinical benefits from simulation-based training need to be evaluated.

The Israel Center for Medical Simulation: a paradigm for cultural change in medical education.

Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is a rapidly growing field, as is illustrated by the increased development of simulation centers worldwide. SBME is becoming a powerful force in addressing the need to increase patient safety through quality-care training. Recognizing the benefits of SBME, increasing numbers of bodies involved in medical and health care education and training are establishing simulation centers worldwide. The general model of most facilities focuses on a single simulation modality or a specific branch of medicine or health care, limiting their overall impact on patient safety and quality of care across the health care systems. MSR, the Israel Center for Medical Simulation, is a comprehensive, national, multimodality, multidisciplinary medical simulation center dedicated to enhancing hands-on medical education, performance assessment, patient safety, and quality of care by improving clinical and communication skills. The center uses an “error-driven” educational approach, which recognizes that errors provide an opportunity to create a unique beneficial learning experience. The authors present the Israeli experience as an alternative model, and describe the impact of the MSR model on the Israeli medical community during four years of activity. They also describe the opportunities this model has opened towards changing the culture of medical education and patient safety within Israel Although this model may require modification when implemented in other medical systems, it highlights important lessons regarding the power of SBME in triggering and bringing about cultural changes in traditional medical education.

Laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation

BackgroundMechanical bowel preparation prior to colorectal surgery may reduce infectious complications, facilitate tumor localization, and allow intraoperative colonoscopy, if required. However, recent data suggest that mechanical bowel preparation may not facilitate a reduction in infectious complications. During laparoscopic colectomy, manual palpation is blunt, thereby potentially compromising tumor localization. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic colectomy.Materials and methodsA retrospective medical record review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who had preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (Group A) or those who did not (Group B). All relevant perioperative data were reviewed and compared.ResultsTwo hundred patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy; 68 (34%) were in Group A and 132 (66%) were in Group B. Sixteen (8%) patients required intraoperative colonoscopy for localization and were evenly distributed between the two groups. The incidence of conversion to laparotomy was slightly higher in Group B (14 vs 9%) due to difficult localization in some cases; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Specifically, an anastomotic leak and a wound infection were recorded in 4 and 12% of patients in Group A compared to 3 and 17% in Group B, respectively.ConclusionsLaparoscopic colectomy may be safely performed without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation, although difficult localization may lead to a slightly higher conversion rate. Appropriate patient selection for laparoscopic colectomy without mechanical bowel preparation is essential. Furthermore, bowel preparation should be considered in cases of small and nonpalpable lesions.