The Physiologic and Emotional Effects of 360-Degree Video Simulation on Head-Mounted Display Versus In-Person Simulation: A Noninferiority, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare
Individualized simulations in a time of social distancing: Learning on donning and doffing of an COVID-19 airway response team.
Journal of clinical anesthesia
2020; 67: 110019
Near Miss in Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Case for In Situ Simulation.
Pediatric quality & safety
2019; 4 (6): e222
INTRODUCTION: A key simulation component is its capability to elicit physiological changes, improving recall. The primary aim was to determine whether parasympathetic responses to head-mounted display simulations (HMDs) were noninferior to in-person simulations. The secondary aims explored sympathetic and affective responses and learning effectiveness.METHODS: The authors conducted a noninferiority trial. Hospital providers who did not use chronotropic medications, have motion sickness, or have seizures were included. The authors randomized participants to in-person or HMD simulation. Biometric sensors collected respiratory sinus arrhythmia and skin conductance levels to measure parasympathetic and sympathetic states at baseline, during, and after the simulation. Affect was measured using a schedule. The authors measured 3-month recall of learning points and used split-plot analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests to analyze.RESULTS: One hundred fifteen participants qualified, and the authors analyzed 56 in each group. Both groups experienced a significant change in mean respiratory sinus arrhythmia from baseline to during and from during to afterward. The difference of change between the groups from baseline to during was 0.134 (95% confidence interval = 0.142 to 0.410, P = 0.339). The difference of change from during the simulation to after was -0.060 (95% confidence interval = -0.337 to 0.217, P = 0.670). Noninferiority was not established for either period. Sympathetic arousal did not occur in either group. Noninferiority was not established for the changes in affect that were demonstrated. The mean scores of teaching effectiveness and achievement scores were not different.CONCLUSIONS: Although a parasympathetic and affective response to the video simulation on an HMD did occur, it was not discernibly noninferior to in-person in this study.
View details for DOI 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000587
View details for PubMedID 34120135
Operating Room Codes Redefined: A Highly Reliable Model Integrating the Core Hospital Code Team.
Pediatric quality & safety
2019; 4 (3): e172
Pediatric patients in intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) settings are at high risk for morbidity should an adverse event occur. We describe an experience in the iMRI scanner where no harm occurred, yet revealed an opportunity to improve the safety of patients utilizing the iMRI. The perioperative quality improvement team, resuscitation team, and radiology nurse leadership collaborated to understand the process better through in situ simulation.Methods: After a problem analysis, the team planned an in situ, high-fidelity simulation with predefined learning objectives to identify previously overlooked opportunities for improvement. The iMRI simulation had unique considerations, including the use of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-compatible mannequin and ensuring participants' safety. Audiovisual equipment was placed in strategic locations to record the MRI and operating room (OR) segments of the simulation, and trained health-care simulation experts provided debriefing.Results: After completion of the iMRI simulation, the quality improvement team solicited feedback from participants and reviewed the video-recorded simulation. Several opportunities for improvement surrounding staff responsibilities and unique aspects of the iMRI environment were identified.Conclusions: iMRI in situ simulation has not been previously described. It presents unique challenges given the integration of personnel from OR and radiology environments, anesthetized patients, and risks from the high-powered MRI magnet. Other institutions utilizing hybrid ORs with iMRI may consider conducting in situ simulations using the described methods.
View details for DOI 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000222
View details for PubMedID 32010849
Typically, multidisciplinary teams manage cardiac arrests occurring outside of the operating room (OR). This approach results in reduced morbidity. However, arrests that occur in the OR are usually managed by OR personnel alone, missing the benefits of out-of-OR hospital code teams. At our institution, there were multiple pathways to activate codes, each having different respondents, depending on time and day of the week. This improvement initiative aimed to create a reliable intraoperative emergency response system with standardized respondents and predefined roles.A multidisciplinary improvement team led this project at an academic pediatric hospital in California. After simulations performed in the OR (in situ), the team identified a valuable key driver-a consistent activation process that initiated standard respondents, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. By utilizing core hospital code members routinely available outside of the OR during days, nights, and weekends, respondents were identified to augment OR personnel. Code roles were preassigned. After education, we conducted in situ simulations that included the perioperative and out-of-OR code team members. We administered a knowledge assessment to perioperative staff.The knowledge assessment for perioperative staff (n = 52) had an average score of 96%. Review of subsequent OR codes reflects an improved initiation process and management.The process for activating the emergency response system and roles for intraoperative code respondents were standardized to ensure a predictable code response, regardless of time or day of the week. Ongoing simulations with perioperative personnel continue to optimize the process.
View details for DOI 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000172
View details for PubMedID 31579871
View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6594783