INTRODUCTION: Mixed-reality (MR) procedural simulators combine virtual and physical components and visualization software that can be used for debriefing and offer an alternative to learn subclavian central venous access (SCVA). We present a SCVA MR simulator, a part-task trainer, which can assist in the training of medical personnel. METHODS: Sixty-five participants were involved in the following: (1) a simulation trial 1; (2) a teaching intervention followed by trial 2 (with the simulator's visualization software); and (3) trial 3, a final simulation assessment. The main test parameters were time to complete SCVA and the SCVA score, a composite of efficiency and safety metrics generated by the simulator's scoring algorithm. Residents and faculty completed questionnaires presimulation and postsimulation that assessed their confidence in obtaining access and learner satisfaction questions, for example, realism of the simulator. RESULTS: The average SCVA score was improved by 24.5 (n=65). Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant reductions in average time (F=31.94, P<0.0001), number of attempts (F=10.56, P<0.0001), and score (F=18.59, P<0.0001). After the teaching intervention and practice with the MR simulator, the results no longer showed a difference in performance between the faculty and residents. On a 5-point scale (5=strongly agree), participants agreed that the SCVA simulator was realistic (M=4.3) and strongly agreed that it should be used as an educational tool (M=4.9). CONCLUSIONS: An SCVA mixed simulator offers a realistic representation of subclavian central venous access and offers new debriefing capabilities.
INTRODUCTION: Mixed-reality (MR) procedural simulators combine virtual and physical components and visualization software that can be used for debriefing and offer an alternative to learn subclavian central venous access (SCVA). We present a SCVA MR simulator, a part-task trainer, which can assist in the training of medical personnel. METHODS: Sixty-five participants were involved in the following: (1) a simulation trial 1; (2) a teaching intervention followed by trial 2 (with the simulator's visualization software); and (3) trial 3, a final simulation assessment. The main test parameters were time to complete SCVA and the SCVA score, a composite of efficiency and safety metrics generated by the simulator's scoring algorithm. Residents and faculty completed questionnaires presimulation and postsimulation that assessed their confidence in obtaining access and learner satisfaction questions, for example, realism of the simulator. RESULTS: The average SCVA score was improved by 24.5 (n=65). Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant reductions in average time (F=31.94, P<0.0001), number of attempts (F=10.56, P<0.0001), and score (F=18.59, P<0.0001). After the teaching intervention and practice with the MR simulator, the results no longer showed a difference in performance between the faculty and residents. On a 5-point scale (5=strongly agree), participants agreed that the SCVA simulator was realistic (M=4.3) and strongly agreed that it should be used as an educational tool (M=4.9). CONCLUSIONS: An SCVA mixed simulator offers a realistic representation of subclavian central venous access and offers new debriefing capabilities.
Authors: Joshua Warren Sappenfield; William Brit Smith; Lou Ann Cooper; David Lizdas; Drew B Gonsalves; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Samsun Lampotang; Albert R Robinson Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.108