{"title":"Simulation-Based Training and Its Use Amongst Practicing Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review","authors":"Jared Bienstock, Albert J Heuer, Yingting Zhang","doi":"10.56068/vwhv8080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This systematic review (SR) describes how simulation-based training (SBT) is utilized by paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).\nData sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from 2010 to 2021.\nReview methods: Standard SR methodology was utilized according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria included English studies conducted in the United States or Canada published and published between 2010 and 2021. Study designs were somewhat heterogeneous and included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods projects. The specific populations included paramedics and EMTs.\nResults: 595 articles were initially identified and reviewed, 25 of which met our inclusion criteria. Of them, the most common SBT areas of focus documented in the literature was general assessment and treatment (7 studies) and airway management (7 studies). The majority of the studies were conducted in a mobile simulation lab (6 studies), simulation centers (5 studies), and ambulances (5 studies). Many of the studies report simulations involving using manikins alone and a combination of manikins and simulated patients. Overall, 21 studies documented the use of high-fidelity simulation. 16 studies involved paramedics only, 8 involved both paramedics and EMTs, and one study involved only EMTs. Most of the impact of SBT appeared to be on objective measures such as performance, procedural success, and ability to identify errors, as well as subjective metrics such as perceived improvement in knowledge and skill. The degree of sustained impact of SBT on skill retention was not frequently reported, and direct enhancement in patient outcomes such as length-of-stay, or mortality were not documented in any of the studies.\nConclusions: Paramedics and EMTs provide critically important, often lifesaving, prehospital care. However, the opportunities to enhance their skills are limited by several factors; most notably their undergraduate and certificate educational requirements, which are much ... (truncated)","PeriodicalId":73465,"journal":{"name":"International journal of paramedicine","volume":"193 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56068/vwhv8080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review (SR) describes how simulation-based training (SBT) is utilized by paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs).
Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from 2010 to 2021.
Review methods: Standard SR methodology was utilized according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria included English studies conducted in the United States or Canada published and published between 2010 and 2021. Study designs were somewhat heterogeneous and included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods projects. The specific populations included paramedics and EMTs.
Results: 595 articles were initially identified and reviewed, 25 of which met our inclusion criteria. Of them, the most common SBT areas of focus documented in the literature was general assessment and treatment (7 studies) and airway management (7 studies). The majority of the studies were conducted in a mobile simulation lab (6 studies), simulation centers (5 studies), and ambulances (5 studies). Many of the studies report simulations involving using manikins alone and a combination of manikins and simulated patients. Overall, 21 studies documented the use of high-fidelity simulation. 16 studies involved paramedics only, 8 involved both paramedics and EMTs, and one study involved only EMTs. Most of the impact of SBT appeared to be on objective measures such as performance, procedural success, and ability to identify errors, as well as subjective metrics such as perceived improvement in knowledge and skill. The degree of sustained impact of SBT on skill retention was not frequently reported, and direct enhancement in patient outcomes such as length-of-stay, or mortality were not documented in any of the studies.
Conclusions: Paramedics and EMTs provide critically important, often lifesaving, prehospital care. However, the opportunities to enhance their skills are limited by several factors; most notably their undergraduate and certificate educational requirements, which are much ... (truncated)
目的:本系统综述(SR)描述了护理人员和紧急医疗技术人员(emt)如何利用基于模拟的培训(SBT)。数据来源:2010 - 2021年检索PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar。审查方法:根据PRISMA指南使用标准SR方法。入选标准包括2010年至2021年间在美国或加拿大发表的英语研究。研究设计有一定的异质性,包括定量、定性和混合方法项目。具体人群包括护理人员和急救人员。结果:595篇文章被初步识别和审查,其中25篇符合我们的纳入标准。其中,文献中记录的最常见的SBT重点领域是一般评估和治疗(7项研究)和气道管理(7项研究)。大多数研究在移动模拟实验室(6项研究)、模拟中心(5项研究)和救护车(5项研究)中进行。许多研究报告的模拟涉及单独使用人体模型和人体模型与模拟患者的组合。总的来说,有21项研究记录了高保真度模拟的使用。16项研究仅涉及护理人员,8项研究同时涉及护理人员和急救人员,1项研究仅涉及急救人员。SBT的大多数影响似乎是在客观的衡量标准上,如表现、程序成功和识别错误的能力,以及主观的衡量标准,如在知识和技能方面的感知改进。SBT对技能保留的持续影响程度并没有经常被报道,并且在任何研究中都没有记录患者预后(如住院时间或死亡率)的直接增强。结论:护理人员和急救人员提供了至关重要的院前护理,往往是挽救生命的。然而,提高他们技能的机会受到几个因素的限制;最值得注意的是他们的本科和证书教育要求,这是非常……(截断)