Medical Residents Performance: Effect of Simulation-Based Training

October 15, 2012 updated by: St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center

Medical Residents Performance in Maximum Barrier Precautions During Central Venous Catheter Placement: Effect of Simulation-Based Training

I Hypothesis:

  1. Simulation-based training in maximal barrier precaution technique during central venous catheter (CVC) placement is superior to general videotape-based training
  2. Baseline performance in maximal barrier precaution technique of PGY 2 and 3 Medical residents, certified in CVC placement, is poor
  3. PGY 2 and 3 medical residents have low self-perceived confidence in mastering maximal barrier precaution technique during central venous catheter (CVC) placement
  4. PGY 2 and 3 medical residents undergoing simulation-based training in maximal barrier precaution technique during central venous catheter (CVC) placement have good recall after 3 months

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

Central line associated bloodstream infection (CL-ABI) is an important and preventable cause of nosocomial infections and is responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that 5 to 26% of patients experience an infectious complication from their central venous catheter [1]. In the United States, it is estimated that nearly 50,000 patients develop central line associated bloodstream infections in the ICUs annually, at a rate of approximately 5 infections per 1000 catheter days [2] and as many as 15,000 deaths annually. Central line associated bloodstream infections are also associated with increased hospital and ICU lengths of stay in the ICU (2). Estimates of the cost of CL-ABI to hospitals range from $25,000 to $65,000 per patient [3, 4].

The Centers for Disease Control have published guidelines for the prevention of CL-ABI that represent a collaborative effort by a multidisciplinary coalition of professional organizations that provide evidence based recommendations to prevent catheter related infections [5]. The interventions emphasize five distinct practices, including: education and training of healthcare providers who place and care for catheters, utilizing maximum sterile barrier precautions during catheter placement, skin preparation using 2% chlorhexidine, avoiding routine replacement of central lines as a strategy to reduce infection, and using antiseptic or antibiotic coated lines in the event that infection rates remain high despite adherence to the above measures [5].

Several studies have demonstrated impressive reductions in CL-ABI from the application of these strategies, ranging from 18 to 100% reductions and realizing significant reductions in mortality and cost [2]. The simple introduction of maximum sterile barrier precautions to insert central lines has been observed to dramatically reduce infection rates for over a decade [6]. However, the CDC's guidelines, despite their seeming simplicity, have been found to be frequently insufficiently applied, whether by ignorance or omission (2) In the past 12 months there have been a total 24 documented central venous catheter (CVC) infections at SLRHC. At RH the total number of central line days since June 2005 was3,567 with a cumulative rate of infection of 2.8 per 1000 central line days and at SLH a total of 8,524 central line days with an infection rate of 4.3 per 1000 central line days. These infection rate figures are above the benchmark experience. The cost of CVC infections to hospitals in the United States is estimated to be $45,000 per infection (7). For SLRHC the cost incurred over the past 12 months is estimated to be $1,080,000.

Training and education of healthcare personnel and the utilization of maximum sterile precautions are two important areas. Residents still most frequently learn central line placement techniques by the "see one, do one, teach one" method, which by its very definition allows for a multitude of techniques in practice. While this teaching theoretically includes the utilization of maximal sterile precautions for central line placement, the focus of teaching, and of residents' anxieties, is most often focused on the proper placement of the line, not the sterile technique used to place it. Residents in non-surgical fields may not be comfortable with maximum sterile technique in bedside procedures, and surgical residents may be somewhat blasé about the need for such detail.

Medical simulators allow residents to practice skills in a realistic and interactive environment that minimizes risk to patients. Studies have found simulation to be an effective means for teaching skills as diverse as ACLS and airway management to laparoscopic surgical skills (8, 9, 10). Additionally, the use of audio-visual equipment in a medical simulator to record a resident's performance gives valuable firsthand feedback that is otherwise not available, as it allows residents to visualize their own missteps (11). This is hypothesized to be of particular value in the proper acquisition of physical skills such as maximum sterile precautions.

We plan to examine the utility of a medical simulation environment that replicates an ICU setting to first assess medical residents' ability to utilize and maintain maximum sterile precautions in the placement of central venous lines using a standardized scoring tool and subsequently, assess the impact of videotape training vs. individual simulated debriefing on performance of correct MBP.

We hypothesize that medical residents, who have baseline training in the placement of central venous lines, will show improvement following simulation and viewing of the training videotape, and that greatest improvement will be seen in the residents who go through a debriefing simulated method. We hypothesize that PGY 2 and 3 medical residents undergoing simulation-based training in maximal barrier precaution technique during central venous catheter (CVC) placement will have good recall after 3 months

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Anticipated)

47

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • New York
      • New York, New York, United States, 10019
        • St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

MEDICAL RESIDENTS

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Medical residents who completed one year training in internal medicine program who are certified by their program to place and supervise medical interns in placement of CVC

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Refusal to participate in the study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
-Primary outcome: Medical residents' performance in maximal barrier precaution (MBP) technique during central venous catheter (CVC) placement
Time Frame: 2 weeks
2 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Secondary outcome: Medical residents' confidence level in maximal barrier precaution (MBP) technique during CVC placement
Time Frame: 1 week
1 week

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Hassan Khouli, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

November 1, 2007

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2008

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 28, 2008

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 28, 2008

First Posted (Estimate)

February 11, 2008

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

October 17, 2012

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 15, 2012

Last Verified

September 1, 2007

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 07-125

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Healthy

Subscribe