Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education

Lejus-Bourdeau, Corinne; Pousset, F.; Magne, C; Bazin, Olivier; Grillot, Nicolas; Pichenot, V.

doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2021.05.006

Cited by 5 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Teamwork Eleven randomized controlled studies (n = 1343) studied pediatric advanced life support instructors, 16 medical students, 18,21 postgraduate medical residents, 19,22,26,28 pediatric nurses, 14 and interprofessional learners. 27,30,31 Teamwork was assessed using a variety of instruments: clinical/technical performance rating, 14,16,18,21,26 anesthesia nontechnical skills (ANTS), 19,22 surgery nontechnical skills, 28 team performance rating, 14,26,27,31 and team attitudes. 30 Fidelity comparisons were made between high-and low-fidelity mannequins, 14,16,18,19,22,28,30 virtual reality and multimedia computer, 21 immersive simulation and didactic instruction, 26 in situ and off-site instruction, 27 and hands-on versus computer-based training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 19 studies were identified for inclusion (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 4, http://links.lww.com/SIH/A987, which details data extraction from the included studies). [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen randomized controlled studies with 1530 participants 14,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][26][27][28][29][30][31] and 5 case-controlled studies with 257 participants 15,17,24,25,32 were conducted between 2012 and 2021. Most of the studies were conducted in North America [14][15][16][18][19][20][21]25,26,28,29,31 and Europe, 17,22,24,27,30 with other locations including New Zealand 32 and Singapore. 23 Participants included training and independently practicing physicians, nurses, first responders, and technicians including those undertaking interprofessional education courses.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were 4 studies that were assessed to be low risk of bias. 16,20,22,24 The main issues identified with the remaining studies related to inadequate blinding of participants and assessors, inadequate randomization, incomplete outcome reporting, and unclear selection processes. The certainty of evidence was judged to be low for indicators of stress (downgraded for inconsistency and risk of bias) and very low for all other outcomes (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and inconsistency).…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Studies and Certainty Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…30 One additional study showed an immediate posttest increase in satisfaction for both high-fidelity mannequin and virtual reality groups and sustained significant satisfaction for virtual reality in the follow-up posttest scores but not for the mannequin group. 23 Three studies that showed no difference had learner groups of advanced physician trainees and junior faculty (anesthesiology 20 ; anesthesiology, emergency medicine, intensive care 22 ; internal medicine 26 ). One study that compared learning environments (higher fidelity in situ clinic and lower fidelity simulation laboratory/classroom 27 ) showed no difference in satisfaction.…”

Section: Learner Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of Simulation Fidelity on Health Care Providers on Team Training—A Systematic Review

Mitchell,

Blanchard,

Curran

et al. 2024

Sim Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review, following PRISMA standards, aimed to assess the effectiveness of higher versus lower fidelity simulation on health care providers engaged in team training. A comprehensive search from January 1, 2011 to January 24, 2023 identified 1390 studies of which 14 randomized (n = 1530) and 5 case controlled (n = 257) studies met the inclusion criteria. The certainty of evidence was very low due to a high risk of bias and inconsistency. Heterogeneity prevented any metaanalysis. Limited evidence showed benefit for confidence, technical skills, and nontechnical skills. No significant difference was found in knowledge outcomes and teamwork abilities between lower and higher fidelity simulation. Participants reported higher satisfaction but also higher stress with higher fidelity materials. Both higher and lower fidelity simulation can be beneficial for team training, with higher fidelity simulation preferred by participants if resources allow. Standardizing definitions and outcomes, as well as conducting robust cost-comparative analyses, are important for future research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Studies and Certainty Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Learner Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Simulation Fidelity on Health Care Providers on Team Training—A Systematic Review

Mitchell,

Blanchard,

Curran

et al. 2024

Sim Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Society for Simulation in Healthcare Guidelines for Simulation Training

Stefanidis,

Cook,

Kalantar-Motamedi

et al. 2024

Sim Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Simulation has become a staple in the training of healthcare professionals with accumulating evidence on its effectiveness. However, guidelines for optimal methods of simulation training do not currently exist. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature on 16 identified key questions were conducted and expert panel consensus recommendations determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Objective These evidence-based guidelines from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare intend to support healthcare professionals in decisions on the most effective methods for simulation training in healthcare Results Twenty recommendations on 16 questions were determined using GRADE. Four expert recommendations were also provided. Conclusions The first evidence-based guidelines for simulation training are provided to guide instructors and learners on the most effective use of simulation in healthcare.

show abstract

Continuing professional development (CPD) for anesthetists: A systematic review

Petersen

Bray

Østergaard

2023

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn accordance with the focus on patient safety and quality in healthcare, continuing professional development (CPD) has received increasing levels of attention as a means to ensure physicians maintain their clinical competencies and are fit to practice. There is some evidence of a beneficial effect of CPD, though few studies have evaluated its effect within anesthesia. The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish which CPD activities anesthetists are engaged in and their effectiveness. The secondary aim was to explore which methods are employed to evaluate anesthetists’ clinical performance.MethodsDatabases searched: Medline, Embase and Web of Science, in May 2023. Additional papers were identified through searching the references of included studies. Eligible studies included anesthetists, either exclusively or combined with other healthcare professionals, who underwent a learning activity or assessment method as part of a formalized CPD program or a stand‐alone activity. Non‐English language studies, non‐peer reviewed studies and studies published prior to 2000 were excluded. Eligible studies were quality assessed and narratively synthesized, with results presented as descriptive summaries.ResultsA total of 2112 studies were identified, of which 63 were eligible for inclusion, encompassing more than 137,518 participants. Studies were primarily of quantitative design and medium quality. Forty‐one studies reported outcomes of single learning activities, whilst 12 studies investigated different roles of assessment methods in CPD and ten studies evaluated CPD programs or combined CPD activities. A 36 of the 41 studies reported positive effects of single learning activities. Investigations of assessment methods revealed evidence of inadequate performance amongst anesthetists and a mixed effect of feedback. Positive attitudes and high levels of engagement were identified for CPD programs, with some evidence of a positive impact on patient/organizational outcomes.DiscussionAnesthetists are engaged in a variety of CPD activities, with evidence of high levels of satisfaction and a positive learning effect. However, the impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes remains unclear and the role of assessment is less well‐defined. There is a need for further, high‐quality studies, evaluating a broader range of outcomes, in order to identify which methods are most effective to train and assess specialists in anesthesia.

show abstract

Low-cost versus high-fidelity pediatric simulators for difficult airway management training: a randomized study in continuing medical education

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of Simulation Fidelity on Health Care Providers on Team Training—A Systematic Review

Effects of Simulation Fidelity on Health Care Providers on Team Training—A Systematic Review

Society for Simulation in Healthcare Guidelines for Simulation Training

Continuing professional development (CPD) for anesthetists: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About