Scott A Bloch1, Amy J Bloch1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, USA Department of Emergency Medicine, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Simulation is becoming standard during emergency medicine (EM) training. To determine if observation-based simulation with minimal participation improves knowledge, skill performance and confidence, we created and evaluated 12 paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) simulations focusing on the educational value of observation. METHODS: Thirty-one EM residents participated in 1-2 simulations each and observed multiple others. Scores obtained on a knowledge test presimulation and postsimulation, clinical skills assessed for changes in performance over the course of the study, and confidence questionnaires given presimulation and postsimulation were analysed. Participants' feedback regarding the observation model was also evaluated. RESULTS: Average scores obtained on the knowledge test improved significantly presimulation to postsimulation (36.3% vs 51.4%), and remained consistent postsimulation to 4 months after simulation training (51.4% vs 48.8%). Gain scores for participants who observed >80% of the simulations were significantly higher than for those who observed<80% (20.7% vs 12.5%). Over 90% of skillsets reassessed throughout the simulations showed improvement, and residents assessed themselves as more confident after simulation training. All participants rated the training as very useful, and 71% reported that being observed was stressful but beneficial, as clinical emergencies are stressful as well. CONCLUSIONS: Using observation with minimal participation as the foundation of simulation training may lead to improvement in observer knowledge, skills and confidence. Observation-based simulation training may also save time and resources, allowing a broader coverage of clinical scenarios than programmes requiring active participation by all learners. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: Simulation is becoming standard during emergency medicine (EM) training. To determine if observation-based simulation with minimal participation improves knowledge, skill performance and confidence, we created and evaluated 12 paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) simulations focusing on the educational value of observation. METHODS: Thirty-one EM residents participated in 1-2 simulations each and observed multiple others. Scores obtained on a knowledge test presimulation and postsimulation, clinical skills assessed for changes in performance over the course of the study, and confidence questionnaires given presimulation and postsimulation were analysed. Participants' feedback regarding the observation model was also evaluated. RESULTS: Average scores obtained on the knowledge test improved significantly presimulation to postsimulation (36.3% vs 51.4%), and remained consistent postsimulation to 4 months after simulation training (51.4% vs 48.8%). Gain scores for participants who observed >80% of the simulations were significantly higher than for those who observed<80% (20.7% vs 12.5%). Over 90% of skillsets reassessed throughout the simulations showed improvement, and residents assessed themselves as more confident after simulation training. All participants rated the training as very useful, and 71% reported that being observed was stressful but beneficial, as clinical emergencies are stressful as well. CONCLUSIONS: Using observation with minimal participation as the foundation of simulation training may lead to improvement in observer knowledge, skills and confidence. Observation-based simulation training may also save time and resources, allowing a broader coverage of clinical scenarios than programmes requiring active participation by all learners. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Michael J Chen; Aditee Ambardekar; Susan M Martinelli; Lauren K Buhl; Daniel P Walsh; Lior Levy; Cindy Ku; Lindsay A Rubenstein; Sara Neves; John D Mitchell Journal: J Educ Perioper Med Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Rahul Ojha; Anthony Liu; Bernard Linton Champion; Emily Hibbert; Ralph Kay Heinrich Nanan Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Robert L Kerner; Kathleen Gallo; Michael Cassara; John DʼAngelo; Anthony Egan; John Galbraith Simmons Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Mark J Bullard; Anthony J Weekes; Randolph J Cordle; Sean M Fox; Catherine M Wares; Alan C Heffner; Lisa D Howley; Deborah Navedo Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-12-21
Authors: Fabian Stroben; Therese Schröder; Katja A Dannenberg; Anke Thomas; Aristomenis Exadaktylos; Wolf E Hautz Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.463