Objectives: Rapid cycle deliberate practice is a simulation training method that cycles between deliberate practice and directed feedback to create perfect practice; in contrast to reflective debriefing where learners are asked to reflect on their performance to create change. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of rapid cycle deliberate practice versus reflective debriefing training on resident application and retention of the pediatric sepsis algorithm. Design: Prospective, randomized-control study. Setting: A tertiary care university children’s hospital simulation room, featuring a high-fidelity pediatric patient simulator. Subjects: Forty-six upper-level pediatric residents. Interventions: Simulation training using rapid cycle deliberate practice or reflective debriefing. Measurements and Main Results: Knowledge was assessed with a quiz on core sepsis management topics. The application of knowledge was assessed with a sepsis management checklist during the simulated scenario. The residents were assessed before and after the intervention and again at a follow-up session, 3–4 months later, to evaluate retention. Both groups had similar pre-intervention scores. Post-intervention, the rapid cycle deliberate practice group had higher checklist scores (rapid cycle deliberate practice 18 points [interquartile range, 18–19] vs reflective debriefing 17 points [interquartile range, 15–18]; p < 0.001). Both groups had improved quiz scores. At follow-up, both groups continued to have higher scores compared with the pre-intervention evaluation, with the rapid cycle deliberate practice group having a greater change in checklist score from pre-intervention to follow-up (rapid cycle deliberate practice 5 points [interquartile range, 3.5–7] vs reflective debriefing 3 points [interquartile range, 1.5–4.5]; p = 0.019). Both groups reported improved confidence in diagnosing and managing septic shock. Conclusions: Both rapid cycle deliberate practice and reflective debriefing are effective in training pediatric residents to apply the sepsis algorithm and in improving their confidence in the management of septic shock. The rapid cycle deliberate practice method was superior immediately post-training; however, it is unclear if this advantage is maintained over time. Both methods should be considered for training residents.

Healthcare systems are urged to build facilities that support safe and efficient delivery of care. Literature demonstrates that the built environment impacts patient safety. Design decisions made early in the planning process may introduce flaws into the system, known as latent safety threats (LSTs). Simulation-based clinical systems testing (SbCST) has successfully been incorporated in the post-construction evaluation process in order to identify LSTs prior to patient exposure and promote preparedness, easing the transition into newly built facilities. As the application of simulation in healthcare extends into the realm of process and systems testing, there is a need for a standardized approach by which to conduct SbCST in order to effectively evaluate newly built healthcare facilities. This paper describes a systemic approach by which to conduct SbCST and provides documentation and evaluation tools in order to develop, implement, and evaluate a newly built environment to identify LSTs and system inefficiencies prior to patient exposure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41077-019-0108-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective: In the schematic design phase of a new freestanding children’s hospital, Simulation-based Hospital Design Testing (SbHDT) was used to evaluate the proposed design of 11 clinical areas. The purpose of this article is to describe the SbHDT process and how it can help identify and mitigate safety concerns during the facility design process. Background: In the design of new healthcare facilities, the ability to mitigate risk in the preconstruction period is imperative. SbHDT in a full-scale cardboard mock-up can be used to proactively test the complex interface between people and the built environment. Method: This study was a prospective investigation of SbHDT in the schematic design planning phase for a 400-bed freestanding children’s hospital where frontline staff simulated episodes of care. Latent conditions related to design were identified through structured debriefing. Failure mode and effect analysis was used to categorize and prioritize simulation findings and was used by the architect team to inform design solutions. A second round of testing was conducted in order to validate design changes. Results: A statistically significant reduction in criticality scores between Round 1 ( n = 201, median = 16.14, SD = 5.8) and Round 2 ( n = 201, median score of 7.68, SD = 5.26, p < .001) was identified. Bivariate analysis also demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in very high/high criticality scores between Round 1 and Round 2. Conclusions: SbHDT in the schematic phase of design planning was effective in mitigating risk related to design prototypes through effective identification of latent conditions and validation of design changes.

Simulation training fosters collaborative learning and improves communication among interdisciplinary teams. In this prospective observational cohort study, we evaluated the impact of interdisciplinary simulation-based team training (SBTT) on immediate learning of team performance behaviors. In a 3-month period, 30 simulation sessions were conducted and 165 staff members, including physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, were trained. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in team performance (p < 0.0001). Study results demonstrate that SBTT is effective in immediate acquisition of optimal team performance behaviors by multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit staff, including physicians with higher level subspecialty training in the simulation environment.

In the process of hospital planning and design, the ability to mitigate risk is imperative and practical as design decisions made early can lead to unintended downstream effects that may lead to patient harm. Simulation has been applied as a strategy to identify system gaps and safety threats with the goal to mitigate risk and improve patient outcomes. Early in the pre-construction phase of design development for a new free-standing children's hospital, Simulation-based Hospital Design Testing (SbHDT) was conducted in a full-scale mock-up. This allowed healthcare teams and architects to actively witness care providing an avenue to study the interaction of humans with their environment, enabling effectively identification of latent conditions that may lay dormant in proposed design features. In order to successfully identify latent conditions in the physical environment and understand the impact of those latent conditions, a specific debriefing framework focused on the built environment was developed and implemented. This article provides a rationale for an approach to debriefing that specifically focuses on the built environment and describes SAFEE, a debriefing guide for simulationists looking to conduct SbHDT.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract