Jennifer Mitzman1, Ilana Bank2, Rebekah A Burns3, Michael C Nguyen4, Pavan Zaveri5, Michael J Falk5, Manu Madhok6, Ann Dietrich7, Jessica Wall3, Muhammad Waseem8, Teresa Wu9,10, Alisa McQueen11, Cynthia R Peng12, Brian Phillips13, Francesca M Bullaro14, Cindy D Chang15, Sam Shahid16, David P Way17, Marc Auerbach18. 1. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center/Nationwide Children's Hospital Columbus OH. 2. Institute of Health Sciences Education Steinberg Centre for Simulation and Interactive Learning/Institute of Pediatric Simulation Montreal Children's Hospital McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada. 3. Seattle Children's Hospital University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle WA. 4. Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network/USF MCOM Tampa FL. 5. George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences/Children's National Health System Washington DC. 6. Children's Minnesota Minneapolis MN. 7. College of Medicine Ohio University Heritage Dublin OH. 8. Lincoln Medical & Mental Health Center Bronx NY. 9. College of Medicine-Phoenix University of Arizona Phoenix AZ. 10. Banner University Medical Center-Phoenix Phoenix AZ. 11. Comer Children's Hospital The University of Chicago Chicago IL. 12. Stanford School of Medicine Stanford CA. 13. Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis IN. 14. Cohen Children's Medical Center-Northwell Health System New York City NY. 15. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Torrance CA. 16. American College of Emergency Physicians Irving TX. 17. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus OH. 18. Yale University School of Medicine New Haven CT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric training is an essential component of emergency medicine (EM) residency. The heterogeneity of pediatric experiences poses a significant challenge to training programs. A national simulation curriculum can assist in providing a standardized foundation of pediatric training experience to all EM trainees. Previously, a consensus-derived set of content for a pediatric curriculum for EM was published. This study aimed to prioritize that content to establish a pediatric simulation-based curriculum for all EM residency programs. METHODS: Seventy-three participants were recruited to participate in a three-round modified Delphi project from 10 stakeholder organizations. In round 1, participants ranked 275 content items from a published set of pediatric curricular items for EM residents into one of four categories: definitely must, probably should, possibly could, or should not be taught using simulation in all residency programs. Additionally, in round 1 participants were asked to contribute additional items. These items were then added to the survey in round 2. In round 2, participants were provided the ratings of the entire panel and asked to rerank the items. Round 3 involved participants dichotomously rating the items. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants participated and 98% completed all three rounds. Round 1 resulted in 61 items rated as definitely must, 72 as probably should, 56 as possibly could, 17 as should not, and 99 new items were suggested. Round 2 resulted in 52 items rated as definitely must, 91 as probably should, 120 as possibly could, and 42 as should not. Round 3 resulted in 56 items rated as definitely must be taught using simulation in all programs. CONCLUSIONS: The completed modified Delphi process developed a consensus on 56 pediatric items that definitely must be taught using simulation in all EM residency programs (20 resuscitation, nine nonresuscitation, and 26 skills). These data will serve as a targeted needs assessment to inform the development of a standard pediatric simulation curriculum for all EM residency programs.
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric training is an essential component of emergency medicine (EM) residency. The heterogeneity of pediatric experiences poses a significant challenge to training programs. A national simulation curriculum can assist in providing a standardized foundation of pediatric training experience to all EM trainees. Previously, a consensus-derived set of content for a pediatric curriculum for EM was published. This study aimed to prioritize that content to establish a pediatric simulation-based curriculum for all EM residency programs. METHODS: Seventy-three participants were recruited to participate in a three-round modified Delphi project from 10 stakeholder organizations. In round 1, participants ranked 275 content items from a published set of pediatric curricular items for EM residents into one of four categories: definitely must, probably should, possibly could, or should not be taught using simulation in all residency programs. Additionally, in round 1 participants were asked to contribute additional items. These items were then added to the survey in round 2. In round 2, participants were provided the ratings of the entire panel and asked to rerank the items. Round 3 involved participants dichotomously rating the items. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants participated and 98% completed all three rounds. Round 1 resulted in 61 items rated as definitely must, 72 as probably should, 56 as possibly could, 17 as should not, and 99 new items were suggested. Round 2 resulted in 52 items rated as definitely must, 91 as probably should, 120 as possibly could, and 42 as should not. Round 3 resulted in 56 items rated as definitely must be taught using simulation in all programs. CONCLUSIONS: The completed modified Delphi process developed a consensus on 56 pediatric items that definitely must be taught using simulation in all EM residency programs (20 resuscitation, nine nonresuscitation, and 26 skills). These data will serve as a targeted needs assessment to inform the development of a standard pediatric simulation curriculum for all EM residency programs.
Authors: Robert L Cloutier; Jennifer D H Walthall; Colette C Mull; Michele M Nypaver; Jill M Baren Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Kenneth A Michelson; Todd W Lyons; Joel D Hudgins; Jason A Levy; Michael C Monuteaux; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Richard G Bachur Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Barbara M Walsh; Sandeep Gangadharan; Travis Whitfill; Marcie Gawel; David Kessler; Robert A Dudas; Jessica Katznelson; Megan Lavoie; Khoon-Yen Tay; Melinda Hamilton; Linda L Brown; Vinay Nadkarni; Marc Auerbach Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Jennifer Mitzman; Andrew M King; Rebecca K Fastle; Laura R Hopson; John D Hoyle; Kelly A Levasseur; Michael S Mitchell; James C O'Neill; Philip A Pazderka; Marcia A Perry; Maegan Reynolds; Payal G Shah; Sara Skarbek-Borowska; David P Way; Rachel M Stanley Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2017-03-22