ObjectiveSimulation plays an integral role in the Canadian healthcare system with applications in quality improvement, systems development, and medical education. High-quality, simulation-based research will ensure its effective use. This study sought to summarize simulation-based research activity and its facilitators and barriers, as well as establish priorities for simulation-based research in Canadian emergency medicine (EM).MethodsSimulation-leads from Canadian departments or divisions of EM associated with a general FRCP-EM training program surveyed and documented active EM simulation-based research at their institutions and identified the perceived facilitators and barriers. Priorities for simulation-based research were generated by simulation-leads via a second survey; these were grouped into themes and finally endorsed by consensus during an in-person meeting of simulation leads. Priority themes were also reviewed by senior simulation educators.ResultsTwenty simulation-leads representing all 14 invited institutions participated in the study between February and May, 2018. Sixty-two active, simulation-based research projects were identified (median per institution = 4.5, IQR 4), as well as six common facilitators and five barriers. Forty-nine priorities for simulation-based research were reported and summarized into eight themes: simulation in competency-based medical education, simulation for inter-professional learning, simulation for summative assessment, simulation for continuing professional development, national curricular development, best practices in simulation-based education, simulation-based education outcomes, and simulation as an investigative methodology.ConclusionThis study summarized simulation-based research activity in EM in Canada, identified its perceived facilitators and barriers, and built national consensus on priority research themes. This represents the first step in the development of a simulation-based research agenda specific to Canadian EM.

ObjectivesTo provide an overview of the available evidence regarding the safety of in situ simulation (ISS) in the emergency department (ED).DesignScoping review.MethodsOriginal articles published before March 2021 were included if they investigated the use of ISS in the field of emergency medicine.Information sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science.ResultsA total of 4077 records were identified by our search strategy and 2476 abstracts were screened. One hundred and thirty full articles were reviewed and 81 full articles were included. Only 33 studies (40%) assessed safety-related issues, among which 11 chose a safety-related primary outcome. Latent safety threats (LSTs) assessment was conducted in 24 studies (30%) and the cancellation rate was described in 9 studies (11%). The possible negative impact of ISS on real ED patients was assessed in two studies (2.5%), through a questionnaire and not through patient outcomes.ConclusionMost studies use ISS for systems-based or education-based applications. Patient safety during ISS is often evaluated in the context of identifying or mitigating LSTs and rarely on the potential impact and risks to patients simultaneously receiving care in the ED. Our scoping review identified knowledge gaps related to the safe conduct of ISS in the ED, which may warrant further investigation.

The simED approach seemed to be well received and perceived by medical students as useful preparation for the ED. An overview of the structure, materials and resources used is provided to assist educators seeking to implement similar ED clinical scenarios in their curriculum.

IntroductionIn situ simulation (ISS) consists of performing a simulation in the everyday working environment with the usual team members. The feasibility of ISS in emergency medicine is an important research question, because ISS offers the possibility for repetitive, regular simulation training consistent with specific local needs. However, ISS also raises the issue of safety, since it might negatively impact the care of other patients in the emergency department (ED). Our hypothesis is that ISS in an academic high-volume ED is feasible, safe and associated with benefits for both staff and patients.MethodsA mixed-method, including a qualitative method for the assessment of feasibility and acceptability and a quantitative method for the assessment of patients’ safety and participants’ psychosocial risks, will be used in this study.Two distinct phases are planned in the ED of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval (Hôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus) between March 2021 and October 2021. Phase 1: an ISS programme will be implemented with selected ED professionals to assess its acceptability and safety and prove the validity of our educational concept. The number of cancelled sessions and the reasons for cancellation will be collected to establish feasibility criteria. Semistructured interviews will evaluate the acceptability of the intervention. We will compare unannounced and announced ISS. Phase 2: the impact of the ISS programme will be measured with validated questionnaires for the assessment of psychosocial risks, self-confidence and perceived stress among nonselected ED professionals, with comparison between those exposed to ISS and those that were not.Ethics and disseminationThe CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research ethics board has approved this protocol (#2020–5000). Results will be presented to key professionals from our institution to improve patient safety. We also aim to publish our results in peer-reviewed journals and will submit abstracts to international conferences to disseminate our findings.

Students had a favourable opinion of their own safety skills. However, answers to free text question revealed misconceptions about the nature of patient safety despite significant teaching on this topic.