CONTEXT: Several neonatal simulation-training programs have been deployed during the last decade, and in a growing number of studies, researchers have investigated the effects of simulation-based team training. This body of evidence remains to be compiled. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the effects of simulation-based team training on clinical performance and patient outcome. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors included studies of team training in critical neonatal situations with reported outcomes on clinical performance and patient outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors extracted data using a predefined template and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: We screened 1434 titles and abstracts, evaluated 173 full texts for eligibility, and included 24 studies. We identified only 2 studies with neonatal mortality outcomes, and no conclusion could be reached regarding the effects of simulation training in developed countries. Considering clinical performance, randomized studies revealed improved team performance in simulated re-evaluations 3 to 6 months after the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Meta-analysis was impossible because of heterogenous interventions and outcomes. Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluating training programs provided the framework for a narrative synthesis. Most included studies had significant methodologic limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based team training in neonatal resuscitation improves team performance and technical performance in simulation-based evaluations 3 to 6 months later. The current evidence was insufficient to conclude on neonatal mortality after simulation-based team training because no studies were available from developed countries. In future work, researchers should include patient outcomes or clinical proxies of treatment quality whenever possible.
OBJECTIVES: The rare event of handling critically ill children often challenge the emergency care team. Several studies have investigated effects of simulation-based team training to prepare for such events, but the body of evidence remains to be compiled. We performed a systematic review of the effects of simulation-based team training on clinical performance and patient outcome. METHODS: From a search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, we included studies of team training in emergency pediatric settings with reported clinical performance and patient outcomes. We extracted data using a predefined template and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials 2.0 and the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. RESULTS: We screened 1926 abstracts and included 79 studies. We identified 15 studies reporting clinical health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Four studies reported survival data, 5 reported time-critical clinical events, 5 reported adherence to guidelines, checklists or tasks, and 2 reported on airway management. Randomized studies revealed improved team performance in simulated reevaluations 2 to 6 months after intervention. A meta-analysis was impossible because of heterogeneous interventions and outcomes. Most included studies had significant methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric simulation-based team training improves clinical performance in time-critical tasks and adherence to guidelines. Improved survival was indicated but not concluded because of high risk of bias. Team performance and technical skills improved for at least 2 to 6 months. Future research should include longer-term measures of skill retention and patient outcomes or clinical measures of treatment quality whenever possible.
The increasing proportion of elderly Americans has brought about an anticipation of 50% rise in prolapse surgeries by 2050. It is anticipated that 25% to 40% of patients undergoing surgeries will develop de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prolapse repair. The Outcomes Following Vaginal Prolapse Repair with Midurethral Sling (OPUS) found a 36% reduction in the risk for de novo SUI, but also demonstrated increased risk of bladder perforations, urinary tract infections, and incomplete bladder emptying symptoms (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2358-2367. As a result, pelvic reconstructive surgeons often vary their approach toward prophylactic MUS at the time of vaginal prolapse repair (VPR). Although a cost-effectiveness analysis found universal MUS placement to be the most cost-effective strategy over both selective and staged strategies (J Urol. 2013;190:1306-1312, this analysis did not include an arm for the less-costly option of using a selective approach via a prolapse-reduced cough stress test (CST). In addition, Richardson analysis of patients undergoing sacral colpopexy lacks generalizability for VPR surgeries (which account for two thirds of all prolapse surgeries). The manuscript described here therefore tested the cost-effectiveness of 3 generalizable MUS utilization strategies for preventing de novo SUI within 1 year post-VPR.Three approaches were compared: (1) staged strategy performing VPR with later MUS placement only for de novo SUI;(2) universal sling placement at the time of VPR; and (3) selective sling placement with MUS at the time of VPR when occult SUI was observed at the time of preoperative prolapse-reduced CST. A representative population of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (at least stage II) was modeled. Included in the VPR model was colpocleisis, apical suspension, or anterior colporrhaphy, with or without hysterectomy. The base assumption was that all VPRs were uncomplicated and anatomically successful. Subsequent treatment pathways were formed based on the 3 aforementioned options if de novo SUI was to occur.A 2017 systematic review by van der Ploeg was used for obtaining literature to gain point estimates concerning the risk for postoperative SUI (Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1029-1038). The search was performed via PubMed through January 2017, and exclusionary criteria were as follows: studies examining urodynamics preoperatively, abdominal prolapse repairs, duplicate studies, and studies lacking clear definitions for VPR, MUS, or SUI. Using data from 3 previous studies, for a selective MUS, the authors estimated the rate of de novo SUI after VPR with a negative preoperative CST to be 33.6%. The authors determined the existence of 4 possible adverse outcomes following MUS: (1) persistent SUI, (2) sling lysis required for voiding dysfunction, (3) mesh exposure requiring excision, and (4) anticholinergic medications required for de novo overactive bladder. Information on costs was gathered Physician Fee Schedules from the 2020 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Incr...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.