BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning最新文献

Healthcare learners can gain necessary experience working with diverse and priority communities through human simulation. In this context, simulated participants (SPs) may be recruited for specific roles because of their appearance, lived experience or identity. Although one of the benefits of simulation is providing learners with practice where the risk of causing harm to patients in the clinical setting is reduced, simulation shifts the potential harm from real patients to SPs. Negative effects of tokenism, misrepresentation, stereotyping or microaggressions may be amplified when SPs are recruited for personal characteristics or lived experience. Educators have an ethical obligation to promote diversity and inclusion; however, we are also obliged to mitigate harm to SPs. The goals of simulation (fulfilling learning objectives safely, authentically and effectively) and curricular obligations to address diverse and priority communities can be in tension with one another; valuing educational benefits might cause educators to deprioritise safety concerns. We explore this tension using a framework of diversity practices, ethics and values and simulation standards of best practice. Through the lens of healthcare ethics, we draw on the ways clinical research can provide a model for how ethical concerns can be approached in simulation, and suggest strategies to uphold authenticity and safety while representing diverse and priority communities. Our objective is not to provide a conclusive statement about how values should be weighed relative to each other, but to offer a framework to guide the complex process of weighing potential risks and benefits when working with diverse and priority communities.

The physical requirements mandated by the COVID-19 pandemic have presented a challenge and an opportunity for simulation educators. Although there were already examples of simulation being delivered at a distance, the pandemic forced this technique into the mainstream. With any new discipline, it is important for the community to agree on vocabulary, methods and reporting guidelines. This editorial is a call to action for the simulation community to start this process so that we can best describe and use this technique.

COVID-19 has claimed over 200 000 lives in the USA and put healthcare workers at risk. Healthcare workers have an increased exposure risk from aerosol-generating procedures such as endotracheal intubation. New barrier designs such as the acrylic box and horizontal plastic drape have emerged to reduce exposure to airborne particles. Particle generating models are needed to test aerosol generating procedure (AGP) barrier designs. To achieve this, an aerosol model that generates a visible and measurable increase in particles which SARS-CoV-2 could travel on and that can also be intubated was created. The model was created using a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) combined with a nebuliser and Ambu bag-valve resuscitator (Ambu, Columbia, Maryland, USA). Nebulised Glo Germ (Glo Germ, Moab, Utah, USA) dissolved in saline solution was moved through the tubing and out of the mannequin's mouth with compression of the Ambu bag. This nebulisation was visualised under ultraviolet light and the quantity of particles between 0.3 and 10.0 μm was measured with a particle counter. Nebulisation was visible exiting the mouth of the mannequin. Nebulised Glo Germ was visualised under ultraviolet light moving in the ambient air. Particles in the size range of 0.3-0.5 µm increased by 20-fold and 1-10 µm increased by 10 252%. SARS-CoV-2 can travel on aerosol and droplet particles and particle generating models are needed to visualise and measure exposure areas and the path particles take during AGPs. We used existing medical and simulation supplies to create a particle simulator.