Introduction Simulation-based medical education (SBME) improves medical knowledge compared with no intervention. In traditional SBME, more time is spent debriefing than practicing skills. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) simulation allows learners to practice skills repetitively, receive brief interspersed feedback, and has been shown to improve individual performance of resuscitation skills in simulation; it has not been compared with traditional simulation methods. Objective The aim of the study was to compare traditional and RCDP SBME. Methods Four pediatric resuscitation cases (3 for teaching and 1 for testing) were developed. For the RCDP arm, traditional cases were deconstructed into sequences of progressively difficult rounds. The last RCDP round served as the traditional arm scenario. Learners received 1 type of instruction on 2 separate days. Pretest and posttest performance during simulation were video recorded and scored using the Simulation Team Assessment Tool; satisfaction surveys were collected. Results Pretest team performance was similar in both groups. Simulation Team Assessment Tool score improvement for RCDP was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.4% to 11%) and traditional was 0.8% (95% confidence interval, −11% to 13%). The difference in improvement of the human factors subscore was statistically significant; RCDP improved 10.2% and traditional improved 1.7% (P = 0.013). The RCDP technique was well received by learners but caused fatigue. Conclusions This pilot study showed a trend toward greater improvement in team performance and significantly greater improvement for human factors with RCDP compared with traditional simulation. Future studies comparing RCDP with other methods are needed to identify best practices and applications of RCDP, including which learners and learning objectives are best suited to RCDP.

Introduction Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) is a team-based simulation method, emphasizing repetitive practice over reflective debriefing, with progressively more challenging rounds, frequent starts and stops, and direct coaching. Although some studies have shown improved performance, no study has evaluated learners' perceptions. We aimed to explore learners' experiences during RCDP. Methods This was a qualitative study of participants' perceptions regarding RCDP during their pediatric emergency medicine rotation. Participants completed surveys about RCDP learning. A purposive sample of residents and nurses were interviewed. Two coders analyzed all interview transcripts to identify emerging themes. Constant comparison analysis was performed until thematic saturation was achieved. Results Forty-four participants completed surveys. Participants found RCDP interruptions beneficial and felt that they learned most during interruptions. Participants who were able to compare traditional and RCDP simulations felt that RCDP allowed more focused correction of mistakes, acquisition of new skills, and timely practice of team behaviors. Fourteen participants were interviewed. Three themes emerged. (1) The real-time corrections during RCDP allowed for learning and creation of new skills through repetition and practice. (2) The RCDP allowed learners to gain confidence, decrease anxiety, and learn in a safe environment. (3) By introducing new information in smaller chunks, participants maximized learning without cognitive overload. Conclusions Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice is well received by learners. Because of frequent interruptions, learners noted early error correction, a safe learning environment, and skill improvement during RCDP. Learners recognized that the progressive advancement of RCDP helped prevent cognitive overload. Future studies should measure cognitive load and skills retention.

Introduction: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) for teaching team-based resuscitation is associated with similar improvements in immediate performance as compared with postsimulation debriefing (PSD). Limited studies compare skill retention between these 2 modalities. Our objective was to compare retention of team leader performance in residents trained with RCDP versus PSD. Methods: This was a cluster-randomized trial comparing RCDP and PSD from January 2018 to April 2019. Pediatric and emergency medicine residents participated in simulation-based pediatric resuscitation education, and teams were randomized to undergo either RCDP or PSD. Each participant's team leader performance was assessed 1 to 12 months after training via a simulated cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was time to defibrillation. Secondary outcomes included overall team leader performance and time to chest compressions. Results: Thirty-two residents (90.6% pediatrics, 9.4% emergency medicine) met inclusion criteria (16 RCDP, 16 PSD). Of the 32 residents, 40% returned in 1 to 3 months, 25% 3 to 6 months, 16% 6 to 9 months, and 19% 10 to 12 months. Participants in RCDP had more than 5 times the odds of achieving defibrillation versus those in the PSD group (odds ratio = 5.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-27.52, P = 0.04). The RCDP group had a higher mean Resident Team Leader Evaluation score (0.54 ± 0.19) than the PSD group (0.34 ± 0.16, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study shows significant differences in subsequent performance in the team leader trained with RCDP and suggests that RCDP may improve retention of pediatric resuscitation skills compared with PSD. Future studies should focus on best applications for RCDP with attention to knowledge and skill decay.

Implementing an online PEM curriculum significantly improved knowledge. As residency programs face new duty hour requirements, online curricula may provide an effective way to supplement teaching. However, to capitalize on this self-directed curriculum, the low participation rates in this study suggest we must first determine and establish ways to overcome barriers to online learning.