Evaluation of high-fidelity simulation training in radiation oncology using an outcomes logic model

Radiation Oncology

Jean-Pierre Bissonnette¹  Pamela Catton¹  Robert Thompson¹  Doug Moseley¹  Emily Milne²  Nicole Harnett¹  Olive Wong²  Caitlin Gillan¹  Meredith Giuliani¹ 

[1] Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2 M9, Canada;Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Radiation therapy;    Teamwork;    Interprofessional practice;    High-fidelity;    Postgraduate;    Residency;    Radiation oncology;    Simulation;   

Others  :  1151596
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-189

 received in 2014-07-10, accepted in 2014-08-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility and educational value of high-fidelity, interprofessional team-based simulation in radiation oncology.

Methods

The simulation event was conducted in a radiation oncology department during a non-clinical day. It involved 5 simulation scenarios that were run over three 105 minute timeslots in a single day. High-acuity, low-frequency clinical situations were selected and included HDR brachytherapy emergency, 4D CT artifact management, pediatric emergency clinical mark-up, electron scalp trial set-up and a cone beam CT misregistration incident. A purposive sample of a minimum of 20 trainees was required to assess recruitment feasibility. A faculty radiation oncologist (RO), medical physicist (MP) or radiation therapist (RTT), facilitated each case. Participants completed a pre event survey of demographic data and motivation for participation. A post event survey collected perceptions of familiarity with the clinical content, comfort with interprofessional practice, and event satisfaction, scored on a 1–10 scale in terms of clinical knowledge, clinical decision making, clinical skills, exposure to other trainees and interprofessional communication. Means and standard deviations were calculated.

Results

Twenty-one trainees participated including 6 ROs (29%), 6 MPs (29%), and 9 RTTs (43%). All 12 cases (100%) were completed within the allocated 105 minutes. Nine faculty facilitators, (3MP, 2 RO, 4 RTTs) were required for 405 minutes each. Additional costs associated with this event were 154 hours to build the high fidelity scenarios, 2 standardized patients (SPs) for a total of 15.5 hours, and consumables.The mean (±SD) educational value score reported by participants with respect to clinical knowledge was 8.9 (1.1), clinical decision making 8.9 (1.3), clinical skills 8.9 (1.1), exposure to other trainees 9.1 (2.3) and interprofessional communication 9.1 (1.0). Fifteen (71%) participants reported the cases were of an appropriate complexity. The importance of further simulation events was rated highly at 9.1/10.

Conclusions

High-fidelity simulation training is feasible and effective in a radiation oncology context. However, such educational activities require significant resources, including personnel and equipment.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Giuliani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Giuliani ME, Gillan C, Milne RA, Uchino M, Millar BA, Catton P: Determining an imaging literacy curriculum for radiation oncologists: An international delphi study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014, 88:961-966.
• [2]Gillan C, Wiljer D, Harnett N, Briggs K, Catton P: Changing stress while stressing change: The role of interprofessional education in mediating stress in the introduction of a transformative technology. J Interprof Care 2010, 24:710-721.
• [3]Chakraborti C, Boonyasai RT, Wright SM, Kern DE: A systematic review of teamwork training interventions in medical student and resident education. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23:846-853.
• [4]Ziv A, Ben-David S, Ziv M: Simulation based medical education: An opportunity to learn from errors. Med Teach 2005, 27:193-199.
• [5]Buckley CE, Kavanagh DO, Traynor O, Neary PC: Is the skillset obtained in surgical simulation transferable to the operating theatre? Am J Surg 2014, 207:146-157.
• [6]Paige JT, Garbee DD, Kozmenko V, Yu Q, Kozmenko L, Yang T, Bonanno L, Swartz W: Getting a head start: High-fidelity, simulation-based operating room team training of interprofessional students. J Am Coll Surg 2014, 218:140-149.
• [7]Reuben DB, Levy-Storms L, Yee MN, Lee M, Cole K, Waite M, Nichols L, Frank JC: Disciplinary split: A threat to geriatrics interdisciplinary team training. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004, 52:1000-1006.
• [8]The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada: Radiation Oncology Speciality Training Requirement 2012. 2013. http://www.royalcollege.ca/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y2vk/mdaw/~edisp/tztest3rcpsced000691.pdf webcite
• [9]The Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists: Residency Programs. 2013. http://www.medphys.ca/content.php?doc=92 webcite
• [10]The Mitchner Institute: Radiation Therapy. 2013. http://www.michener.ca/ft/rad_therapy.php#.U5W8GU1OU6Y webcite
• [11]Armstrong EG, Barsion SJ: Using an outcomes-logic-model approach to evaluate a faculty development program for medical educators. Acad Med 2006, 81:483-488.
• [12]Hyer K, Skinner JH, Kane RL, Howe JL, Whitelaw N, Wilson N, Flaherty E, Halstead L, Fulmer T: Using scripted video to assess interdisciplinary team effectiveness training outcomes. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 2003, 24:75-91.
• [13]Parsell G, Bligh J: The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (ripls). Med Educ 1999, 33:95-100.
• [14]Pollard KC, Miers ME, Gilchrist M: Collaborative learning for collaborative working? Initial findings from a longitudinal study of health and social care students. Health Soc Care Community 2004, 12:346-358.
• [15]J.F. S: Development and Psychometric Testing of a Collaborative Behaviour Scale. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego; 1989.
• [16]Bujold A, Craig T, Jaffray D, Dawson LA: Image-guided radiotherapy: Has it influenced patient outcomes? Semin Radiat Oncol 2012, 22:50-61.
• [17]Jaffray DA: Image-guided radiotherapy: From current concept to future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012, 9:688-699.
• [18]Frank JR, Snell L, Sherbino J: Draft Canmeds 2015 Milestones Guide – may 2014. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2014.
• [19]J C. Crossing the quality chiasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
• [20]Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, Fineberg H, Garcia P, Ke Y, Kelley P, Kistnasamy B, Meleis A, Naylor D, Pablos-Mendez A, Reddy S, Scrimshaw S, Sepulveda J, Serwadda D, Zurayk H: Health professionals for a new century: Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010, 376:1923-1958.
• [21]Liang MI, McCann GA, Rath KS, Backes FJ, Cansino C, Salani R: Training the next generation of robotic surgeons using guided mentorship: A randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.05.011. [Epub ahead of print]
• [22]Dawe SR, Pena GN, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, Cregan PC, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ: Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training. Br J Surg 2014, 101(9):1063-1076. doi:10.1002/bjs.9482. Epub 2014 May 15