Literature DB >> 27310034

Feasibility of Human Factors Immersive Simulation Training in Ophthalmology: The London Pilot.

George M Saleh1, James R Wawrzynski2, Kamran Saha2, Phillip Smith3, Declan Flanagan2, Melanie Hingorani2, Clinton John4, Paul Sullivan2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Human factors training can enhance teamworking and reduce error. It is used regularly in certain medical disciplines, but its use has not been established for ophthalmology to our knowledge.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of providing immersive simulation human factors training for ophthalmic surgical teams. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective scenario-based simulation and concept description at University College London Hospital and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, England, from December 12, 2013, to March 13, 2014. At both sites, fully immersive simulated operating theater environments were used, comprising live interactive communication with patients and theater staff, full anesthetic and operating facilities, replicated patient notes, active vital signs, and the ability to contact surgical or anesthetic teams outside of the theater via telephone. Participants were consultant (attending) and trainee ophthalmic surgeons and anesthetists, operating department assistants and practitioners, and ophthalmic nursing staff. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The following 4 previously validated rating tools for nontechnical skills were applied to a replicated series of scenarios based on actual patient safety incidents at Moorfields Eye Hospital and in the literature: Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS), Non-Technical Skills Scale (NOTECHS), Anesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS), and Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS). The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calculated for each pair of scoring tools. Intertool and interassessor reliability was established. Interassessor consistency was compared by calculating a normalized standard deviation of scores for each tool across all assessors.
RESULTS: Twenty simulation scenarios, including wrong intraocular lens implantation, wrong eye operation, wrong drug administration, and wrong patient, were provided. The intertool correlations were 0.732 (95% CI, 0.271-0.919; P = .01) for NOTECHS vs ANTS, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.814-0.968; P < .001) for NOTSS vs ANTS, 0.850 (95% CI, 0.475-0.964; P < .001) for OTAS vs ANTS, 0.812 (95% CI, 0.153-0.971; P = .03) for OTAS vs NOTECHS, 0.716 (95% CI, -0.079 to 0.955; P = .07) for OTAS vs NOTSS, and 0.516 (95% CI, -0.020 to 0.822; P = .06) for NOTECHS vs NOTSS. The normalized standard deviations of scores obtained using each tool across all assessors were 0.024 (95% CI, 0.014-0.091) for NOTSS, 0.060 (95% CI, 0.034-0.225) for OTAS, 0.068 (95% CI, 0.041-0.194) for ANTS, and 0.072 (95% CI, 0.043-0.206) for NOTECHS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study describes the feasibility of a high-fidelity immersive simulation course specifically for ophthalmic surgical teams. The ANTS and NOTSS had the highest intertool and interrater consistency, respectively. Human factors simulation in ophthalmology offers a new method of teaching team members, with the potential to reduce serious ophthalmic patient safety events. Further work will define its usefulness and practical applications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27310034     DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1769

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  7 in total

1.  Cost and time resourcing for ophthalmic simulation in the UK: a Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Survey of regional Simulation Leads in 2021.

Authors:  David Lockington; George M Saleh; Anne Fiona Spencer; John Ferris
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 4.456

Review 2.  Validity of scoring systems for the assessment of technical and non-technical skills in ophthalmic surgery-a systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Charles Wood; Sundas Maqsood; Mayank A Nanavaty; Saul Rajak
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.456

3.  Principles of simulation and their role in enhancing cataract surgery training.

Authors:  Thomas Charles Wood; Sundas Maqsood; William Sancha; Alex Saunders; David Lockington; Mayank A Nanavaty; Saul Rajak
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 4.456

Review 4.  Exploring human factors in the operating room: scoping review of training offerings for healthcare professionals.

Authors:  Alex Lee; Alexandra Finstad; Ben Tipney; Tyler Lamb; Alvi Rahman; Kirsten Devenny; Jad Abou Khalil; Craig Kuziemsky; Fady Balaa
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2022-03-08

5.  Evolution and Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Cataract Surgery.

Authors:  Daniel Josef Lindegger; James Wawrzynski; George Michael Saleh
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2022-04-25

Review 6.  A systematic review of simulation-based training tools for technical and non-technical skills in ophthalmology.

Authors:  Roxanne Lee; Nicholas Raison; Wai Yan Lau; Abdullatif Aydin; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed; Shreya Haldar
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 3.775

7.  Improving the Quality of Evaluation Data in Simulation-Based Healthcare Improvement Projects: A Practitioner's Guide to Choosing and Using Published Measurement Tools.

Authors:  Chiara M Santomauro; Andrew Hill; Tara McCurdie; Hannah L McGlashan
Journal:  Simul Healthc       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.690

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.