Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare最新文献

Abstract: This systematic review, following PRISMA standards, aimed to assess the effectiveness of higher versus lower fidelity simulation on health care providers engaged in team training. A comprehensive search from January 1, 2011 to January 24, 2023 identified 1390 studies of which 14 randomized (n = 1530) and 5 case controlled (n = 257) studies met the inclusion criteria. The certainty of evidence was very low due to a high risk of bias and inconsistency. Heterogeneity prevented any metaanalysis. Limited evidence showed benefit for confidence, technical skills, and nontechnical skills. No significant difference was found in knowledge outcomes and teamwork abilities between lower and higher fidelity simulation. Participants reported higher satisfaction but also higher stress with higher fidelity materials. Both higher and lower fidelity simulation can be beneficial for team training, with higher fidelity simulation preferred by participants if resources allow. Standardizing definitions and outcomes, as well as conducting robust cost-comparative analyses, are important for future research.

Background: Simulation has become a staple in the training of healthcare professionals with accumulating evidence on its effectiveness. However, guidelines for optimal methods of simulation training do not currently exist.

Methods: Systematic reviews of the literature on 16 identified key questions were conducted and expert panel consensus recommendations determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare intend to support healthcare professionals in decisions on the most effective methods for simulation training in healthcare.

Results: Twenty recommendations on 16 questions were determined using GRADE. Four expert recommendations were also provided.

Conclusions: The first evidence-based guidelines for simulation training are provided to guide instructors and learners on the most effective use of simulation in healthcare.

Abstract: Distance simulation is a method of health care training in which the learners and facilitators are in different physical locations. Although methods of distance simulation have existed in health care for decades, this approach to education became much more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review studies a subset of distance simulation that includes combined in-person and distance simulation elements, identified here as "mixed- distance simulation." A review of the distance simulation literature identified 10,929 articles. Screened by inclusion and exclusion criteria, 34 articles were ultimately included in this review. The findings of this review present positive and negative aspects of mixed-distance simulation formats, a description of the most frequent configurations related to delivery, terminology challenges, as well as future directions including the need for faculty development, methodological rigor, and reporting details.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize research completed between 2011 and 2021 to report the current state of the science on the use of standardized patients (SPs) to teach communication skills. The research question that guided this study was, "Among health care professionals, does the use of SP methodology as a means of teaching communication skills result in improved learner knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or patient outcomes when compared with other simulation methodologies?"

Design: This review was reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).Data SourcesFour databases (CINAHL, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Scopus) were searched using a combination of medical subject headings, or Mesh terms, as well as keywords to retrieve nonindexed citations.Review MethodsThe inclusion criteria were broad to complete a comprehensive search of the literature. To be eligible for inclusion, a study had to be original research that compared simulation using an SP to another simulation methodology. The study had to evaluate communication knowledge, skill, attitude, and/or patient outcome with an academic or practicing health care professional.

Results: The initial database search strategy yielded 8058 citations. These results were narrowed down to 18 studies through an in-depth analysis of each article using identified inclusion criteria. The SPs were superior to role play in 1 (33%, n = 3) study where knowledge was evaluated, 6 (75%, n = 8) studies where skills were evaluated, and 1 (20%, n = 5) study where attitude was evaluated. The SPs were compared with a manikin in 5 studies. The SPs were superior to a manikin in 3 (60%, n = 5) studies where knowledge was measured and in 1 (100%, n = 1) study where attitude was measured. No study measured the outcome knowledge of an SP to a manikin. Finally, SPs were compared with a virtual SP in 3 studies. When knowledge was evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in 1 study (100%, n = 1). When skills were evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in 1 study (50%, n = 2), and when attitude was evaluated, SPs were superior to a virtual SP in no study (0%, n = 2). No study evaluated patient outcomes in the comparison of an SP to another simulation methodology.

Conclusions: Studies show a weak indication that SP-based education is superior to other simulation methodologies in most contexts. However more rigorous studies with larger sample sizes, validated instruments, and effects on patient outcomes are needed to definitively determine the optimal method/modality for teaching communication to health care professionals.

Abstract: With the increasing availability of virtual reality (VR) and its lower overall costs of use, the objective of this review was to compare VR to traditional simulation in terms of learning outcomes. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: ( a ) research study (of any design), ( b ) focused on learners in health professions, and ( c ) compared VR with traditional simulation. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: ( a ) not a research study, ( b ) focused on learners outside health professions, ( c ) used screen-based or computer-based simulation, ( d ) used a task trainer, and ( e ) did not involve a comparison of VR to traditional simulation. The searches were run on November 11 and 12, 2021, in CINAHL via EBSCO, Ovid Embase, ERIC via EBSCO, IEEE Xplore, Ovid Medline, Ovid PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the review. A team of researchers applied Kirkpatrick's Levels, Melnyk's Levels of Evidence, and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme guidelines to assess the level of evidence and look for bias. Fifteen studies were reviewed including 11 randomized controlled trials. The lead researcher synthesized the study results into 3 categories: (1) traditional simulation performed better, (2) VR performed better, and (3) comparable outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to endorse one form of simulation (VR or traditional) as more effective at this time. The body of evidence contained too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions to answer the guiding question. The studies covered a large range of modalities, learner groups, and healthcare topics, preventing a meta-analysis. Based on the literature and experience, we recommend that VR experiences be proctored, include debriefing, have a backup plan for cybersickness or myopia, and have time and costs documented. Use of VR is likely to expand; thus, research is needed to inform the best contexts and applications.

Introduction: The use of extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual, augmented, and mixed reality, has increased within surgical and procedural training programs. Few studies have assessed experiential learning- and patient-based outcomes using XR compared with standard training methods.

Methods: As a working group for the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, we used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a PICO strategy to perform a systematic review of 4238 articles to assess the effectiveness of XR technologies compared with standard training methods. Outcomes were grouped into knowledge, time-to-completion, technical proficiency, reactions, and patient outcomes. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible.

Results: Thirty-two studies met eligibility criteria: 18 randomized controlled trials, 7 comparative studies, and 7 systematic reviews. Outcomes of most studies included Kirkpatrick levels of evidence I-III (reactions, knowledge, and behavior), while few reported level IV outcomes (patient). The overall risk of bias was low. With few exceptions, included studies showed XR technology to be more effective than standard training methods in improving objective skills and performance, shortening procedure time, and receiving more positive learner ratings. However, XR use did not show significant differences in gained knowledge.

Conclusions: Surgical or procedural XR training may improve technical skill development among trainees and is generally favored over standard training methods. However, there should be an additional focus on how skill development translates to clinically relevant outcomes. We recommend longitudinal studies to examine retention and transfer of training to clinical settings, methods to improve timely, adaptive feedback for deliberate practice, and cost analyses.

Abstract: This systematic review was conducted, according to PRISMA standards, to examine the impact of the level of physical realism of simulation training on clinical, educational, and procedural outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as defined by the World Bank. A search from January 1, 2011 to January 24, 2023 identified 2311 studies that met the inclusion criteria including 9 randomized (n = 627) and 2 case-controlled studies (n = 159). Due to the high risk of bias and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence was very low, and heterogeneity prevented any metaanalysis. We observed limited evidence for desirable effects in participant satisfaction and confidence, but no significant difference in skills acquisition and performance in the clinical practice environment. When considering the equivocal evidence and cost implications, we recommend the use of lower physical realism simulation training in LMIC settings. It is important to standardize outcomes and conduct more studies in lower income settings.

Abstract: Understanding what interventions and approaches are currently being used to improve the knowledge, skills, and effectiveness of instructors in simulation-based education is an integral step for carving out the future of simulation. The current study is a scoping review on the topic, to uncover what is known about faculty development for simulation-based education.We screened 3259 abstracts and included 35 studies in this scoping review. Our findings reveal a clear image that the landscape of faculty development in simulation is widely diverse, revealing an array of foundations, terrains, and peaks even within the same zone of focus. As the field of faculty development in simulation continues to mature, we would hope that greater continuity and cohesiveness across the literature would continue to grow as well. Recommendations provided here may help provide the pathway toward that aim.

Abstract: Although just-in-time training (JIT) is increasingly used in simulation-based health professions education, its impact on learning, performance, and patient outcomes remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine whether JIT simulation training leads to improved learning and performance outcomes. We included randomized or nonrandomized interventional studies assessing the impact of JIT simulation training (training conducted in temporal or spatial proximity to performance) on learning outcomes among health professionals (trainees or practitioners). Of 4077 citations screened, 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. Just-in-time training simulation training has been evaluated for a variety of medical, resuscitation, and surgical procedures. Most JIT simulation training occurred immediately before procedures and lasted between 5 and 30 minutes. Despite the very low certainty of evidence, this systematic review suggests JIT simulation training can improve learning and performance outcomes, in particular time to complete skills. There remains limited data on better patient outcomes and collateral educational effects.

Abstract: Debriefing is a critical component in most simulation experiences. With the growing number of debriefing concepts, approaches, and tools, we need to understand how to debrief most effectively because there is little empiric evidence to guide us in their use. This systematic review explores the current literature on debriefing in healthcare simulation education to understand the evidence behind practice and clarify gaps in the literature. The PICO question for this review was defined as "In healthcare providers [P], does the use of one debriefing or feedback intervention [I], compared to a different debriefing or feedback intervention [C], improve educational and clinical outcomes [O] in simulation-based education?" We included 70 studies in our final review and found that our current debriefing strategies, frameworks, and techniques are not based on robust empirical evidence. Based on this, we highlight future research needs.