Stephanie L Mawhirt1, Luz Fonacier2, Marcella Aquino3. 1. NYU-Winthrop Hospital, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Mineola, New York. Electronic address: stephanie.mawhirt@nyulangone.org. 2. NYU-Winthrop Hospital, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Mineola, New York. 3. Hasbro Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Allergy & Immunology Section, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The advantages of clinical simulation used in medical education include the acquisition of clinical skills in a controlled setting, promoting a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, and a high degree of learner satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify knowledge gaps among Internal Medicine residents and students in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-induced angioedema through their participation in a simulation course. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving clinical simulations with a high-fidelity, patient-simulator. The cases (antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema) were standardized and algorithmic. Participants completed a pre- and post- simulation knowledge assessment and course evaluation. A follow-up knowledge survey was sent out 6 to 12 months after the course completion. RESULTS: Twelve groups comprising 45 medical students and residents completed the anaphylaxis course. All groups diagnosed anaphylaxis after more than 2-organ-system involvement had manifested, and half of the groups made the diagnosis after the patient-simulator was in anaphylactic shock. Half gave an incorrect dose of epinephrine, and most of the participants were inexperienced in epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) administration. Eight groups comprising 27 participants completed the ACE-inhibitor-angioedema course. Six of the groups correctly diagnosed the patient-simulator, but multiple incorrect treatments were given, and only 1 group successfully intubated the patient-simulator. Knowledge improved immediately after the simulation, and knowledge specific to EAI treatment seemed to be retained long-term. All participants agreed that the simulation was practical to their education. CONCLUSION: Clinical simulation improves knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. We advocate that clinical simulation be incorporated at institutions with appropriate capabilities.
BACKGROUND: The advantages of clinical simulation used in medical education include the acquisition of clinical skills in a controlled setting, promoting a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, and a high degree of learner satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify knowledge gaps among Internal Medicine residents and students in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-induced angioedema through their participation in a simulation course. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving clinical simulations with a high-fidelity, patient-simulator. The cases (antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema) were standardized and algorithmic. Participants completed a pre- and post- simulation knowledge assessment and course evaluation. A follow-up knowledge survey was sent out 6 to 12 months after the course completion. RESULTS: Twelve groups comprising 45 medical students and residents completed the anaphylaxis course. All groups diagnosed anaphylaxis after more than 2-organ-system involvement had manifested, and half of the groups made the diagnosis after the patient-simulator was in anaphylactic shock. Half gave an incorrect dose of epinephrine, and most of the participants were inexperienced in epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) administration. Eight groups comprising 27 participants completed the ACE-inhibitor-angioedema course. Six of the groups correctly diagnosed the patient-simulator, but multiple incorrect treatments were given, and only 1 group successfully intubated the patient-simulator. Knowledge improved immediately after the simulation, and knowledge specific to EAI treatment seemed to be retained long-term. All participants agreed that the simulation was practical to their education. CONCLUSION: Clinical simulation improves knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. We advocate that clinical simulation be incorporated at institutions with appropriate capabilities.
Authors: Mary L Staicu; David Vyles; Erica S Shenoy; Cosby A Stone; Taylor Banks; Kristin S Alvarez; Kimberly G Blumenthal Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2020-10