A Systematic Review of Simulation in Burn Care: Education, Assessment, and Management.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Burn Care & Research Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1093/jbcr/irae084
Tayla Moshal, Devon O'Brien, Idean Roohani, Christian Jimenez, Katelyn Kondra, Zachary J Collier, Joseph N Carey, Haig A Yenikomshian, Justin Gillenwater
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Simulation in Burn Care: Education, Assessment, and Management.","authors":"Tayla Moshal, Devon O'Brien, Idean Roohani, Christian Jimenez, Katelyn Kondra, Zachary J Collier, Joseph N Carey, Haig A Yenikomshian, Justin Gillenwater","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/irae084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessment and management of burns require nuanced, timely interventions in high-stake settings, creating challenges for trainees. Simulation-based education has become increasingly popular in surgical and nonsurgical subspecialties to supplement training without compromising patient safety. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on existing burn management-related simulations. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles describing burn-specific surgical and nonsurgical simulation models were included. The model type, study description, simulated skills, assessment methods, fidelity, cost, and outcomes were collected. Of 3472 articles, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of simulations were high-fidelity (n = 17, 54.8%). Most were immersive (n = 17, 54.8%) and used synthetic benchtop models (n = 13, 41.9%), whereas none were augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR). Simulations of acute and early surgical intervention techniques (n = 16, 51.6%) and burn wound assessments (n = 15, 48.4%) were the most common, whereas burn reconstruction was the least common (n = 3, 9.7%). Technical skills were taught more often (n = 29, 93.5%) than nontechnical skills (n = 15, 48.4%). Subjective assessments (n = 18, 58.1%) were used more often than objective assessments (n = 23, 74.2%). Of the studies that reported costs, 91.7% (n = 11) reported low costs. This review identified the need to expand burn simulator options, especially for burn reconstruction, and highlighted the paucity of animal, cadavers, and AR/VR models. Developing validated, accessible burn simulations to supplement training may improve education, patient safety, and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"154-165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irae084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessment and management of burns require nuanced, timely interventions in high-stake settings, creating challenges for trainees. Simulation-based education has become increasingly popular in surgical and nonsurgical subspecialties to supplement training without compromising patient safety. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on existing burn management-related simulations. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles describing burn-specific surgical and nonsurgical simulation models were included. The model type, study description, simulated skills, assessment methods, fidelity, cost, and outcomes were collected. Of 3472 articles, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of simulations were high-fidelity (n = 17, 54.8%). Most were immersive (n = 17, 54.8%) and used synthetic benchtop models (n = 13, 41.9%), whereas none were augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR). Simulations of acute and early surgical intervention techniques (n = 16, 51.6%) and burn wound assessments (n = 15, 48.4%) were the most common, whereas burn reconstruction was the least common (n = 3, 9.7%). Technical skills were taught more often (n = 29, 93.5%) than nontechnical skills (n = 15, 48.4%). Subjective assessments (n = 18, 58.1%) were used more often than objective assessments (n = 23, 74.2%). Of the studies that reported costs, 91.7% (n = 11) reported low costs. This review identified the need to expand burn simulator options, especially for burn reconstruction, and highlighted the paucity of animal, cadavers, and AR/VR models. Developing validated, accessible burn simulations to supplement training may improve education, patient safety, and outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
烧伤护理模拟系统回顾:教育、评估和管理。
烧伤的评估和管理需要在高风险环境中进行细致、及时的干预,这给受训人员带来了挑战。在不影响患者安全的前提下,模拟教学在外科和非外科亚专科越来越受欢迎,以补充培训内容。本研究旨在系统回顾现有烧伤管理相关模拟教学的文献。根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南进行了系统综述。纳入了描述烧伤特定手术和非手术模拟模型的文章。收集了模型类型、研究描述、模拟技能、评估方法、逼真度、成本和结果。在 3472 篇文章中,有 31 篇符合纳入标准。大多数模拟模型为高保真模型(17 篇,占 54.8%)。大多数是沉浸式模拟(17 人,占 54.8%)和使用合成台式模型(13 人,占 41.9%),而没有人使用增强/虚拟现实技术。急性和早期外科干预技术模拟(16 人,51.6%)和烧伤创面评估模拟(15 人,48.4%)最常见,而烧伤重建模拟最不常见(3 人,9.7%)。传授技术技能的人数(29 人,93.5%)多于传授非技术技能的人数(15 人,48.4%)。主观评估(18 人,58.1%)比客观评估(23 人,74.2%)更常用。在报告成本的研究中,91.7%(n=11)报告成本较低。本综述指出有必要扩大烧伤模拟器的选择范围,尤其是用于烧伤重建的模拟器,并强调了动物、尸体和增强/虚拟现实模型的缺乏。开发经过验证、易于使用的烧伤模拟器来补充培训,可以改善教育、患者安全和治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.
期刊最新文献
Wildland Firefighters Suffer Increasing Risk of Job-Related Death. An Evaluation of Burn Fellowship Program Websites' Presence and Content. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix Application for Complex Wound Reconstruction. A Systematic Review of Simulation in Burn Care: Education, Assessment, and Management. Monocyte Anisocytosis Changes in Patients After Major Burn Injuries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1