PURPOSE: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is increasingly taught by simulation. The authors reviewed the literature on the effects of simulation training in CVC on learner and clinical outcomes. METHOD: The authors searched computerized databases (1950 to May 2010), reference lists, and considered studies with a control group (without simulation education intervention). Two independent assessors reviewed the retrieved citations. Independent data abstraction was performed on study design, study quality score, learner characteristics, sample size, components of interventional curriculum, outcomes assessed, and method of assessment. Learner outcomes included performance measures on simulators, knowledge, and confidence. Patient outcomes included number of needle passes, arterial puncture, pneumothorax, and catheter-related infections. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified. Simulation-based education was associated with significant improvements in learner outcomes: performance on simulators (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.76]), knowledge (SMD 0.60 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.84]), and confidence (SMD 0.41 [95% CI 0.30 to 0.53] for studies with single-group pretest and posttest design; SMD 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) for studies with nonrandomized, two-group design). Furthermore, simulation-based education was associated with improved patient outcomes, including fewer needle passes (SMD -0.58 [95% CI -0.95 to -0.20]), and pneumothorax (relative risk 0.62 [95% CI 0.40 to 0.97]), for studies with nonrandomized, two-group design. However, simulation-based training was not associated with a significant reduction in risk of either arterial puncture or catheter-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations in the literature reviewed, evidence suggests that simulation-based education for CVC provides benefits in learner and select clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is increasingly taught by simulation. The authors reviewed the literature on the effects of simulation training in CVC on learner and clinical outcomes. METHOD: The authors searched computerized databases (1950 to May 2010), reference lists, and considered studies with a control group (without simulation education intervention). Two independent assessors reviewed the retrieved citations. Independent data abstraction was performed on study design, study quality score, learner characteristics, sample size, components of interventional curriculum, outcomes assessed, and method of assessment. Learner outcomes included performance measures on simulators, knowledge, and confidence. Patient outcomes included number of needle passes, arterial puncture, pneumothorax, and catheter-related infections. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified. Simulation-based education was associated with significant improvements in learner outcomes: performance on simulators (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.76]), knowledge (SMD 0.60 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.84]), and confidence (SMD 0.41 [95% CI 0.30 to 0.53] for studies with single-group pretest and posttest design; SMD 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) for studies with nonrandomized, two-group design). Furthermore, simulation-based education was associated with improved patient outcomes, including fewer needle passes (SMD -0.58 [95% CI -0.95 to -0.20]), and pneumothorax (relative risk 0.62 [95% CI 0.40 to 0.97]), for studies with nonrandomized, two-group design. However, simulation-based training was not associated with a significant reduction in risk of either arterial puncture or catheter-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations in the literature reviewed, evidence suggests that simulation-based education for CVC provides benefits in learner and select clinical outcomes.
Authors: Riley Hoyer; Russel Means; Jeffrey Robertson; Douglas Rappaport; Charles Schmier; Travis Jones; Lori Ann Stolz; Stephen Jerome Kaplan; William Joaquin Adamas-Rappaport; Richard Amini Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: David Frederick Pepley; Cheyenne Cassel Sonntag; Rohan Sunil Prabhu; Mary Alice Yovanoff; David C Han; Scarlett Rae Miller; Jason Zachary Moore Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Lisa Shieh; Minjoung Go; Daniel Gessner; Jonathan H Chen; Joseph Hopkins; Paul Maggio Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Rafael Vilhena de Carvalho Fürst; Afonso César Polimanti; Sidnei José Galego; Maria Claudia Bicudo; Erik Montagna; João Antônio Corrêa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Rudolf Horn; Susanne Morf; Liliana Chiorean; Yi Dong; Xin-Wu Cui; Nathan S S Atkinson; Christian Jenssen Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Joshua D Lenchus; Cristiane Mocelin Carvalho; Kaitlyn Ferreri; Jill Steiner Sanko; Kristopher L Arheart; Maureen Fitzpatrick; S Barry Issenberg Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2013-12
Authors: Geoffrey M Fleming; Richard B Mink; Christoph Hornik; Amanda R Emke; Michael L Green; Katherine Mason; Toni Petrillo; Jennifer Schuette; M Hossein Tcharmtchi; Margaret Winkler; David A Turner Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2016-07