Stephanie N Stapleton1, Michael Cassara2, Tiffany Moadel3, Brendan W Munzer4, Christopher Sampson5, Ambrose H Wong6, Eisha Chopra7, Jane Kim8, Suzanne Bentley9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine Boston University School of Medicine Boston Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine North Shore University Hospital Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Northwell Health Patient Safety Institute/Emergency Medical Institute Hempstead New York USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Uniondale New York USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine University of Missouri School of Medicine Columbia Missouri USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine Kings County Hospital/SUNY Downstate New York City New York USA. 9. Departments of Emergency Medicine & Medical Education Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai NYC Health + Hospitals/Elmhurst Elmhurst New York USA.
Abstract
Objectives: We identified and quantified the gap between emergency medicine (EM) procedures currently taught using simulation versus those that educators would teach if they had better procedural task trainers. Additionally, we endeavored to describe which procedures were taught using homemade models and the barriers to creation and use of additional homemade models. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, we developed a survey and distributed it to a convenience sample of EM simulationists via the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Simulation Academy listserv. Survey items asked participants to identify procedures they thought should be taught using simulation ("most important"), do teach using simulation ("most frequent"), would teach if a simulator or model were available ("most needed"), and do teach using simulation with "homemade" models ("most frequent homemade"). Results: Thirty-seven surveys were completed. The majority of respondents worked at academic medical centers and were involved in simulation-based education for at least 6 years. Three procedures ranked highly in overall teaching importance and currently taught categories. We identified four procedures that ranked highly as both important techniques to teach and would teach via simulation. Two procedures were selected as the most important procedures that the participants do teach via simulation but would like to teach in an improved way. We found 14 procedures that simulationists would teach if an adequate model was available, four of which are of high importance. Conclusions: This study captured data to illuminate the procedural model gap and inform future interventions that may address it and meet the overarching objective to create better and more readily available procedure models for EM simulation educators in the future. It offers an informed way of prioritizing procedures for which additional homemade models should be created and disseminated as well as barriers to be aware of and to work to overcome. Our work has implications for learners, educators, administrators, and industry.
Objectives: We identified and quantified the gap between emergency medicine (EM) procedures currently taught using simulation versus those that educators would teach if they had better procedural task trainers. Additionally, we endeavored to describe which procedures were taught using homemade models and the barriers to creation and use of additional homemade models. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, we developed a survey and distributed it to a convenience sample of EM simulationists via the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Simulation Academy listserv. Survey items asked participants to identify procedures they thought should be taught using simulation ("most important"), do teach using simulation ("most frequent"), would teach if a simulator or model were available ("most needed"), and do teach using simulation with "homemade" models ("most frequent homemade"). Results: Thirty-seven surveys were completed. The majority of respondents worked at academic medical centers and were involved in simulation-based education for at least 6 years. Three procedures ranked highly in overall teaching importance and currently taught categories. We identified four procedures that ranked highly as both important techniques to teach and would teach via simulation. Two procedures were selected as the most important procedures that the participants do teach via simulation but would like to teach in an improved way. We found 14 procedures that simulationists would teach if an adequate model was available, four of which are of high importance. Conclusions: This study captured data to illuminate the procedural model gap and inform future interventions that may address it and meet the overarching objective to create better and more readily available procedure models for EM simulation educators in the future. It offers an informed way of prioritizing procedures for which additional homemade models should be created and disseminated as well as barriers to be aware of and to work to overcome. Our work has implications for learners, educators, administrators, and industry.
Authors: Ernest E Wang; Joshua Quinones; Michael T Fitch; Suzanne Dooley-Hash; Sharon Griswold-Theodorson; Ron Medzon; Frederick Korley; Torrey Laack; Adam Robinett; Lamont Clay Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Michael S Beeson; Felix Ankel; Rahul Bhat; Joshua S Broder; Sara Paradise Dimeo; Diane L Gorgas; Jonathan S Jones; Viral Patel; Elizabeth Schiller; Jacob W Ufberg; Julia N Keehbauch Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: S B Issenberg; W C McGaghie; I R Hart; J W Mayer; J M Felner; E R Petrusa; R A Waugh; D D Brown; R R Safford; I H Gessner; D L Gordon; G A Ewy Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian Clyne; Hannah Barber Doucet; Linda Brown; Andrew Musits; Elizabeth Jacobs; Christopher Merritt; Rory Merritt; Lauren Allister; Gianna Petrone; Nicholas Musisca; Jessica L Smith; Janette Baird; Michael J Mello Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Richard L Lammers; Moira Davenport; Frederick Korley; Sharon Griswold-Theodorson; Michael T Fitch; Aneesh T Narang; Leigh V Evans; Amy Gross; Elliot Rodriguez; Kelly L Dodge; Cara J Hamann; Walter C Robey Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Marcia Perry; Andrew Linn; Brendan W Munzer; Laura Hopson; Ambrosya Amlong; Michael Cole; Sally A Santen Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2018-02