Objectives. The purpose of this research was to characterize the use of simulation in initial paramedic education programs in order assist stakeholders’ efforts to target educational initiatives and resources. This group sought to provide a snapshot of what simulation resources programs have or have access to and how they are used; faculty perceptions about simulation; whether program characteristics, resources, or faculty training influence simulation use; and if simulation resources are uniform for patients of all ages. Methods. This was a cross-sectional census survey of paramedic programs that were accredited or had a Letter of Review from the Committee on Accreditation of Educational Programs for the EMS Professions at the time of the study. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses. Results. Of the 638 surveys sent, 389 valid responses (61%) were analyzed. Paramedic programs reported they have or have access to a wide range of simulation resources (task trainers [100%], simple manikins [100%], intermediate manikins [99%], advanced/fully programmable manikins [91%], live simulated patients [83%], computer-based [71%], and virtual reality [19%]); however, they do not consistently use them, particularly advanced (71%), live simulated patients (66%), computer-based (games, scenarios) (31%), and virtual reality (4%). Simulation equipment (of any type) reportedly sits idle and unused in (31%) of programs. Lack of training was cited as the most common reason. Personnel support specific to simulation was available in 44% of programs. Programs reported using simulation to replace skills more frequently than to replace field or clinical hours. Simulation goals included assessment, critical thinking, and problem-solving most frequently, and patient and crew safety least often. Programs using advanced manikins report manufacturers as their primary means of training (87%) and that 19% of faculty had no training specific to those manikins. Many (78%) respondents felt they should use more simulation. Conclusions. Paramedic programs have and have access to diverse simulation resources; however, faculty training and other program resources appear to influence their use.
Introduction: Healthcare leaders advocate for interprofessional education as a means to promote collaborative practice, enhance interdisciplinary communication, and improve patient safety in the health professions. There is little evidence specific to interprofessional simulation in paramedic education. Methods: The National Association of EMS Educators (NAEMSE) surveyed paramedic programs that were accredited or in the process of becoming accredited. Program respondents were asked to characterize their resources and their use of those resources, and then were asked about their perceptions pertaining to simulation in their program. Chi-square analysis was used to compare characteristics of programs that participated in interdisciplinary simulation with those that did not. Results: Of the 389 of 638 (61%) paramedic program survey respondents, 44% (159 of 362) report interprofessional simulation. They perceived they used the right amount of simulation more frequently than other paramedic programs X2 (1, N=362) = 8.425, p X2 (1, N=362) = 11.751, pX2 (1, N=356) = 8.838, pX2 (1, N=362) = 4.704, pX2 (1, N=362) = 11.508 pX2 (1, N=362) = 5.495, pX2 (1, N=359) = 12.595, p<0.01.Conclusion: This research suggests that paramedic programs conducting interdisciplinary simulation indicated they have greater access to resources and faculty training to support simulation.
Objective Our objective was to identify research priorities to understand the impact of COVID‐19 on initial emergency medical services (EMS) education. Methods We used a modified Delphi method with an expert panel (n = 15) of EMS stakeholders to develop consensus on the research priorities that are most important and feasible to understand the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on initial EMS education. Data were collected from August 2020 to February 2021 over 5 rounds (3 electronic surveys and 2 live virtual meetings). In Round 1, participants submitted research priorities over 9 specific areas. Responses were thematically analyzed to develop a list of research priorities reviewed in Round 2. In Round 3, participants rated the priorities by importance and feasibility, with a weighted score (2/3*importance+1/3*feasibility) used for preliminary prioritization. In Round 4, participants ranked the priorities. In Round 5, participants provided their agreement or disagreement with the group's consensus of the top 8 research priorities. Results During Rounds 1 and 2, 135 ideas were submitted by the panel, leading to a preliminary list of 27 research priorities after thematic analysis. The top 4 research priorities identified by the expert panel were prehospital internship access, impact of lack of field and clinical experience, student health and safety, and EMS education program availability and accessibility. Consensus was reached with 10/11 (91%) participants in Round 5 agreeing. Conclusions The identified research priorities are an important first step to begin evaluating the EMS educational infrastructure, processes, and outcomes that were affected or threatened through the pandemic.
Objective As out‐of‐hospital medicine evolves, emergency medical services (EMS) education practices must also be updated to ensure that EMS professionals acquire and maintain the skills needed to best serve patients. We aimed to identify and rank the top 10 research priorities related to EMS education in the United States. Methods We conducted a convenience survey of EMS educators to identify challenges facing EMS education before leveraging a purposefully selected panel of EMS educators to prioritize research gaps through a modified Delphi approach. Data were collected electronically (March 2021–June 2021) over 4 survey rounds consisting of idea generation (Rounds 1 and 2), importance scoring (Round 3), and consensus ranking (Round 4). At the end of Round 4, composite scores were used to generate a list of 10 prioritized research gaps related to EMS education. Results In the pre‐Delphi survey, 463 EMS educators identified 2055 challenges facing EMS education. We recruited 32 EMS education experts as Delphi panelists and 28 completed all 4 rounds. Panelists submitted 77 knowledge gaps. The top 10 knowledge gaps included defining competency of EMS learners and educators, association of curricula and accreditation requirements with real‐world practice, the effects of diversity and cultural humility among educators and learners on equitable patient care, evidence‐based teaching methods, and public perception of the EMS profession and education system. Conclusions Although 10 gaps were prioritized, panelists deemed all 77 gaps as having considerable importance for EMS education. This suite of knowledge gaps is intended to guide researchers and research‐funding bodies for future resource allocation.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.