BackgroundSimulation-based research (SBR) is rapidly expanding but the quality of reporting needs improvement. For a reader to critically assess a study, the elements of the study need to be clearly reported. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for SBR by creating extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statements.MethodsAn iterative multistep consensus-building process was used on the basis of the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines. The consensus process involved the following: (1) developing a steering committee, (2) defining the scope of the reporting guidelines, (3) identifying a consensus panel, (4) generating a list of items for discussion via online premeeting survey, (5) conducting a consensus meeting, and (6) drafting reporting guidelines with an explanation and elaboration document.ResultsThe following 11 extensions were recommended for CONSORT: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background), item 5 (interventions), item 6 (outcomes), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 15 (baseline data), item 17 (outcomes/ estimation), item 20 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 25 (funding). The following 10 extensions were recommended for STROBE: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background/rationale), item 7 (variables), item 8 (data sources/measurement), item 12 (statistical methods), item 14 (descriptive data), item 16 (main results), item 19 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 22 (funding). An elaboration document was created to provide examples and explanation for each extension.ConclusionsWe have developed extensions for the CONSORT and STROBE Statements that can help improve the quality of reporting for SBR (Sim Healthcare 00:00-00, 2016).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

As simulation is increasingly used to study questions pertaining to pediatrics, it is important that investigators use rigorous methods to conduct their research. In this article, we discuss several important aspects of conducting simulation-based research in pediatrics. First, we describe, from a pediatric perspective, the 2 main types of simulationbased research: (1) studies that assess the efficacy of simulation as a training methodology and (2) studies where simulation is used as an investigative methodology. We provide a framework to help structure research questions for each type of research and describe illustrative examples of published research in pediatrics using these 2 frameworks. Second, we highlight the benefits of simulation-based research and how these apply to pediatrics. Third, we describe simulation-specific confounding variables that serve as threats to the internal validity of simulation studies and offer strategies to mitigate these confounders. Finally, we discuss the various types of outcome measures available for simulation research and offer a list of validated pediatric assessment tools that can be used in future simulation-based studies.

BackgroundEmergency department visits quadrupled with the initial onset and surge during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in New York City from April to June 2009. This time period was unique in that >90% of the circulating virus was surveyed to be the novel 2009 H1N1 influenza A according to the New York City Department of Health. We describe our experience using lung ultrasound in a case series of patients with respiratory symptoms requiring chest X-ray during the initial onset and surge of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.MethodsWe describe a case series of patients from a prospective observational cohort study of lung ultrasound, enrolling patients requiring chest X-ray for suspected pneumonia that coincided with the onset and surge of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.ResultsTwenty pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza patients requiring chest X-ray were enrolled during this time period. Median age was 6.7 years. Lung ultrasound via modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol assisted in the identification of viral pneumonia (n = 15; 75%), viral pneumonia with superimposed bacterial pneumonia (n = 7; 35%), isolated bacterial pneumonia only (n = 1; 5%), and no findings of viral or bacterial pneumonia (n = 4; 20%) in this cohort of patients. Based on 54 observations, interobserver agreement for distinguishing viral from bacterial pneumonia using lung ultrasound was ĸ = 0.82 (0.63 to 0.99).ConclusionsLung ultrasound may be used to distinguish viral from bacterial pneumonia. Lung ultrasound may be useful during epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory illnesses for rapid point-of-care triage and management of patients.

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound is well supported by the medical literature. Consequently, pediatric emergency medicine providers have embraced this technology in everyday practice. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement endorsing the use of point-of-care ultrasound by pediatric emergency medicine providers.  To date, there is no standard guideline for the practice of point-of-care ultrasound for this specialty. This document serves as an initial step in the detailed “how to” and description of individual point-of-care ultrasound examinations.  Pediatric emergency medicine providers should refer to this paper as reference for published research, objectives for learners, and standardized reporting guidelines.

No abstract

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02075450.

Background: Simulation-based research (SBR) is rapidly expanding but the quality of reporting needs improvement. For a reader to critically assess a study, the elements of the study need to be clearly reported. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for SBR by creating extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statements. Methods: An iterative multistep consensus-building process was used on the basis of the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines. The consensus process involved the following: (1) developing a steering committee, (2) defining the scope of the reporting guidelines, (3) identifying a consensus panel, (4) generating a list of items for discussion via online premeeting survey, (5) conducting a consensus meeting, and (6) drafting reporting guidelines with an explanation and elaboration document. Results: The following 11 extensions were recommended for CONSORT: item 1 (title/abstract), item 2 (background), item 5 (interventions), item 6 (outcomes), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 15 (baseline data), item 17 (outcomes/ estimation), item 20 (limitations), item 21 (generalizability), and item 25 (funding).

Acquisition of competency in procedural skills is a fundamental goal of medical training. In this Perspective, the authors propose an evidence-based pedagogical framework for procedural skill training. The framework was developed based on a review of the literature using a critical synthesis approach and builds on earlier models of procedural skill training in medicine. The authors begin by describing the fundamentals of procedural skill development. Then, a six-step pedagogical framework for procedural skills training is presented: Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, and Maintain. In this framework, procedural skill training begins with the learner acquiring requisite cognitive knowledge through didactic education (Learn) and observation of the procedure (See). The learner then progresses to the stage of psychomotor skill acquisition and is allowed to deliberately practice the procedure on a simulator (Practice). Simulation-based mastery learning is employed to allow the trainee to prove competency prior to performing the procedure on a patient (Prove). Once competency is demonstrated on a simulator, the trainee is allowed to perform the procedure on patients with direct supervision, until he or she can be entrusted to perform the procedure independently (Do). Maintenance of the skill is ensured through continued clinical practice, supplemented by simulation-based training as needed (Maintain). Evidence in support of each component of the framework is presented. Implementation of the proposed framework presents a paradigm shift in procedural skill training. However, the authors believe that adoption of the framework will improve procedural skill training and patient safety.