Comparison of high- and low equipment fidelity during paediatric simulation team training: a case control study

BMC Medical Education

Carl-Johan Wallin³  Li Felländer-Tsai³  Cecilia Escher³  Karl-Johan Lidefelt²  Leif Hedman¹  Lisbet Meurling³ 

[1] Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;Division of Paediatrics, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm SE 141 86, Sweden;Center for Advanced Medical Simulation and Training (CAMST), Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

关键词: Paediatric;    Mental strain;    Trainees;    Trainer;    Follower;    Leader;    Team training;    Simulation;    High-fidelity;    Low-fidelity;   

Others  :  1090543
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-221

 received in 2014-04-23, accepted in 2014-10-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

High-fidelity patient simulators in team training are becoming popular, though research showing benefits of the training process compared to low-fidelity models is rare. We explored in situ training for paediatric teams in an emergency department using a low-fidelity model (plastic doll) and a high-fidelity paediatric simulator, keeping other contextual factors constant. The goal was to study differences in trainees’ and trainers’ performance along with their individual experiences, during in situ training, using either a low-fidelity model or a high-fidelity paediatric simulator.

Methods

During a two-year period, teams involved in paediatric emergency care were trained in groups of five to nine. Each team performed one video-recorded paediatric emergency scenario. A case control study was undertaken in which 34 teams used either a low-fidelity model (n = 17) or a high-fidelity paediatric simulator (n = 17). The teams’ clinical performances during the scenarios were measured as the time elapsed to prescribe as well as deliver oxygen. The trainers were monitored regarding frequency of their interventions. We also registered trainees’ and trainers’ mental strain and flow experience.

Results

Of 225 trainees’ occasions during 34 sessions, 34 trainer questionnaires, 163 trainee questionnaires, and 28 videos, could be analyzed. Time to deliver oxygen was significantly longer (p = 0.014) when a high-fidelity simulator was used. The trainees’ mental strain and flow did not differ between the two types of training. The frequency of trainers interventions was lower (p < 0.001) when trainees used a high-fidelity simulator; trainers’ perceived mental strain was lower (<0.001) and their flow experience higher (p = 0.004) when using high-fidelity simulator.

Conclusions

Levels of equipment fidelity affect measurable performance variables in simulation-based team training, but trainee s’ individual experiences are similar. We also note a reduction in the frequency of trainers’ interventions in the scenarios as well as their mental strain, when trainees used a high-fidelity simulator.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Meurling et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS, Ebrary I: To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2000.
• [2]Manser T: Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009, 53(2):143-151.
• [3]Flin R, O´Connor P, Crichton M: Teamworking. In Safety At The Sharp End A Guide To Non-Technical Skills. Edited by Flin R, O´Connor P, Crichton M. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2008:93-127.
• [4]Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA: The science of training: a decade of progress. Annu Rev Psychol 2001, 52:471-499.
• [5]Flin R, O´Connor P, Crichton M: Training methods for Non-Technical Skills. In Safety At The Sharp End A Guide To Non-Technical Skills. Edited by Flin R, O´Connor P, Crichton M. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2008:243-267.
• [6]Rehmann AJ, Mitman RD, Reynolds MC: A Handbook Of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements For Human Factors Research. 1995.
• [7]Beaubien JM, Baker DP: The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? Quality & safety in health care 2004, 13(Suppl 1):i51-i56.
• [8]Norma G, Dore K, Grierson L: The minimal relationsship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ 2012, 46:636-647.
• [9]Crofts J, Bartlett C, Ellis D, Hunt L, Fox R, Draycott T: Training for shoulder dystocia: a trial of simulation using low-fidelity and high-fidelity mannequins. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108:1477-1485.
• [10]Ström P, Hedman L, Särnå L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Felländer-Tsai L: Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surg Endosc 2006, 20(9):1383-1388. Epub 2006 Jul 3
• [11]Wallin C-J, Hedman L, Meurling L, Felländer-Tsai L: Targets for training, feedback and assessment of all OR members’ team work. In Safer Surgery: Analysing Behaviour in the Operating Theatre. Edited by Flin R, Mitchel L. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2009:129-150.
• [12]Kunzle B, Zala-Mezo E, Wacker J, Kolbe M, Spahn DR, Grote G: Leadership in anaesthesia teams: the most effective leadership is shared. Qual Saf Health Care 2010, 19:1-6.
• [13]Bergman JZ, Rentsch JR, Small EE, Davenport SW, Bergman SM: The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. J Soc Psychol 2012, 152(1):17-42.
• [14]Pearce CL, Sims HP: Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 2002, 6(2):172-197.
• [15]Meurling L, Hedman L, Felländer-Tsai L, Wallin C-J: Leaders´ and followers´ individual experiences during early phase of simulation-based team training; an exploratory study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013, 22(6):459-467.
• [16]Csikszenmihalyi M, Abuhamdeh S, Nakamura J: Flow. In Handbook Of Competence And Motivation. Edited by AJ Elliot AJ, Dweck CS. New York: The Guilford Press; 2005:598-608.
• [17]Baddeley A: Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 2012, 63:1-29.
• [18]Borg G, Borg E: A new generation of scaling methods: Level-anchored ratio scaling. Psychologica 2001, 28:15-45.
• [19]Jackson S, Martin AJ, Eklund RC: Long and short measures of flow: the construct validity of the FSS-2. DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008, 30:561-587.
• [20]Finan E, Bismilla Z, Whyte HE, Leblanc V, McNamara PJ: High-fidelity simulator technology may not be superior to traditional low-fidelity equipment for neonatal resuscitation training. J Perinatol 2012, 32(4):287.
• [21]Csikszentmihalyi M: Flow: The psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row; 1990.
• [22]Harder BN, Ross CJ, Paul P: Instructor comfort level in high-fidelity simulation. Nurse Educ Today 2012, 33(10):1242-1245.