Dataset Information

Use of simulation to teach in the operating room: don't Let the COVID-19 pandemic to interrupt education an observational clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Simulation-based education has become the most important part of resident training in anesthesiology, especially during the pandemic. It allows learning the skills and the management of different situations without putting residents in risk of contamination, considering COVID-19 is highly contagious. The hypothesis was that simulation is still associated with improvement of knowledge acquisitions despite the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Residents of anesthesiology and intensive care subjected to an anaphylaxis simulation scenario. Their knowledge levels were assessed by true/false questions before and one month after the simulation session. The STAI test was used to measure anxiety levels before and after the scenario. Data were analyzed statistically using Wilcoxon and Mc Nemar tests.

Results

Junior residents (< 2 years) received significantly higher scores in post-training theoretical tests compared to their pre-training scores (79.2 ± 9.6, 84.5 ± 8.2, p = 0.002, n = 21). There was no difference between pre and post-test scores of seniors (80.2 ± 9, 81.8 ± 10.4, p = 0.3). Pre- and post-anxiety inventory scores were nearly the same and both were in the moderate group (39.8 ± 10.1, 39.3 ± 12.1, p = 0.8).

Conclusion

Simulation-based education improved the knowledge levels of the residents without raising anxiety levels. Thus, simulation-based training showed its value as an important tool of education during the pandemic, which needs to be further popularized for training at all institutions. Enlightening medical educators about this accomplished teaching method may lead to improved quality of medical education in developing countries and reshape how tomorrow's doctors are trained during pandemics.

SUBMITTER: Buyuk S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8674114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince operating rooms are a major bottleneck resource and an important revenue driver in hospitals, it is important to use these resources efficiently. Studies estimate that between 60 and 70% of hospital admissions are due to surgeries. Furthermore, staffing cannot be changed daily to respond to changing demands. The resulting high complexity in operating room management necessitates perpetual process evaluation and the use of decision support tools. In this study, we evaluate several management policies and their consequences for the operating theater of the University Hospital Augsburg.MethodsBased on a data set with 12,946 surgeries, we evaluate management policies such as parallel induction of anesthesia with varying levels of staff support, the use of a dedicated emergency room, extending operating room hours reserved as buffer capacity, and different elective patient sequencing policies. We develop a detailed simulation model that serves to capture the process flow in the entire operating theater: scheduling surgeries from a dynamically managed waiting list, handling various types of schedule disruptions, rescheduling and prioritizing postponed and deferred surgeries, and reallocating operating room capacity. The system performance is measured by indicators such as patient waiting time, idle time, staff overtime, and the number of deferred surgeries.ResultsWe identify significant trade-offs between expected waiting times for different patient urgency categories when operating rooms are opened longer to serve as end-of-day buffers. The introduction of parallel induction of anesthesia allows for additional patients to be scheduled and operated on during regular hours. However, this comes with a higher number of expected deferrals, which can be partially mitigated by employing additional anesthesia teams. Changes to the sequencing of elective patients according to their expected surgery duration cause expectable outcomes for a multitude of performance indicators.ConclusionsOur simulation-based approach allows operating theater managers to test a multitude of potential changes in operating room management without disrupting the ongoing workflow. The close collaboration between management and researchers in the design of the simulation framework and the data analysis has yielded immediate benefits for the scheduling policies and data collection efforts at our practice partner.

Project description:IntroductionSome surgical site infections (SSI) could be prevented by following adequate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Poor compliance with IPC measures often occurs due to knowledge gaps and insufficient education of healthcare professionals. The education and training of SSI preventive measures does not usually take place in the operating room (OR), due to safety, and organisational and logistic issues. The proposed study aims to compare virtual reality (VR) as a tool for medical students to learn the SSI prevention measures and adequate behaviours (eg, limit movements…) in the OR, to conventional teaching.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes a randomised controlled multicentre trial comparing an educational intervention based on VR simulation to routine education. This multicentre study will be performed in three universities: Grenoble Alpes University (France), Imperial College London (UK) and University of Heidelberg (Germany). Third-year medical students of each university will be randomised in two groups. The students randomised in the intervention group will follow VR teaching. The students randomised in the control group will follow a conventional education programme. Primary outcome will be the difference between scores obtained at the IPC exam at the end of the year between the two groups. The written exam will be the same in the three countries. Secondary outcomes will be satisfaction and students' progression for the VR group. The data will be analysed with intention-to-treat and per protocol.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Medical Education Ethics Committee of the London Imperial College (MEEC1920-172), by the Ethical Committee for the Research of Grenoble Alpes University (CER Grenoble Alpes-Avis-2019-099-24-2) and by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University (S-765/2019). Results will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals, communicated to participants, general public and all relevant stakeholders.