| Literature DB >> 19561937 |
Amit Gupta, Brad Peckler, Dawn Schoken.
Abstract
Emergency medicine (EM) residency programs are a new concept to India. As these programs develop in India the need for effective teaching tools for skills education will rise. A high fidelity simulation workshop was conducted with a intent to expose current residents posted in emergency departments (EDs) to the concept of simulation technology. The participants were subjected to scenarios which tested their core competencies, medical knowledge, and procedural skills using simulation technology. 50 residents were tested over 5 days and an overall satisfaction score and personal comments were assessed to rate the performance of this study. A pre- and post simulation survey was done. Results showed that participants felt that their understanding of communication of expectations increased from 38% fair or good to 76% very good or best. The frequency in which they thought they would ask for help increased from 36% fair or good to 88% very good or best. It was found that students had increased their confidence to challenge a questionable order from a superior from 48% occasionally or half of the time to 76% who would do it the majority of the time or always. In the post-survey, 80% would the majority of the time or always admit that they did not know something from 46% who stated they would only do it occasionally or half of the time. We concluded that simulation as a tool for teaching unknown and stressful conditions of ED naturally pair. Resident core competencies can be taught and evaluated more effectively in the simulation lab in a controlled, safe, and collegial manner.Entities:
Keywords: Emergency Medicine Residency; India; Simulation
Year: 2008 PMID: 19561937 PMCID: PMC2700562 DOI: 10.4103/0974-2700.41787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Emerg Trauma Shock ISSN: 0974-2700
Pre- and postworkshop survey questionaire
| Mark the answers on the following liekert scales | |
|---|---|
| (1) Worst (2) fair (3) good (4) very good (5) best [for questions 1-13, 18-20] | |
| (1) Never (2) Occasionally (3) half the time (4) majority of the time (5) always [for questions 14-17, 21-25] | |
| 1. | Your overall knowledge of teamwork skills, actions, and behaviors |
| 2. | Your overall communication skills |
| 3. | Your overall ability to coordinate care with other team members |
| 4. | Consistency/frequency with which you communicate the plan of care or mental model to your team members |
| 5. | Consistency/frequency with which you clearly communicate expectations to your team members |
| 6. | Consistency/frequency with which you ask for clarification / practice ‘check-backs’ |
| 7. | Consistency/frequency with which you practice checking 2 patient identifiers prior to treatment such as medication adminstration |
| 8. | Consistency/frequency with which you ask patient about allergies prior to giving medication |
| 9. | Consistency/frequency with which you explain what is going on to patient and family, offer reassurance and include them in the care |
| 10. | Consistency/frequency with which you update team members on patient care status or patient condition |
| 11. | Consistency/frequency with which you ‘call out’ critical information and significant change in patient condition |
| 12. | Consistency/frequency with which you ask for help when you need it |
| 13. | Consistency/frequency with which you offer help to your team members without being asked |
| 14. | Consistency/frequency with which you question ‘speak up’ or challenge a questinable order to prevent an error even if it is your superior? |
| 15. | Likelihood to admint “you don't konw” how to do something to your team members |
| 16. | Ability to remain calm under stress |
| 17. | Tendency to blame other team memebers for errors or things that do or did not go right |
| 18. | Likelihood to assert yourself and confront team member when there is a problem |
| 19. | Ability to manage conflict with your team members |
| 20. | Consistency with which you support a positive team climate and avoid negative remarks |
| 21. | Consistency/frequency with which you actively paricipate in a debrief of CQI activities |
| 22. | Likelihood to support the goals of the department for the sake of the team |
| 23. | Likelihood to report an error that you make |
| 24. | Likelihood to report an error that your team member makes |
| 25. | Likelihood to stand up and advocate for the patient even if it is not popular with your team members |
The SWOT analysis on introduction of Hi-fidelity simulation to resident level doctors in India
| Strengths | Weakness | Opportunities | Threats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure for the first time | In ability to have more than 20 participants curriculum. | Simulation to be a part of the medical | Lack of knowledge |
| Conducted as a part of an International Event | Pre- and Postworkshop surveys were conducted on 2 days | Start Simulation Research in Academic Settings across India | Lack of exposure |
| Simulator was considered as progressive step | Lack of more exposure to more clinical faculty | Simulator to be used for life support training | Overall costs |
| Faculty were very supportive | Inability to conduct a pediatric simulation workshop | Simulation lab at all medical schools | Lack of support for maintenance |
| Students and nurses performed with ease | Anti-simulator markerting my competing intersts | ||
| Ministry of health were convinced |