In situ simulation training for a better interprofessional team performance in transferring critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective randomised control trial

Sidharta Kusuma Manggala, Aida Rosita Tantri, Adhrie Sugiarto, Imelda Rosalyn Sianipar, Theddeus Octavianus Hari Prasetyono, Sidharta Kusuma Manggala, Aida Rosita Tantri, Adhrie Sugiarto, Imelda Rosalyn Sianipar, Theddeus Octavianus Hari Prasetyono

Abstract

Background: Transferring critically ill patients with COVID-19 is a challenging task; therefore, well-trained medical team is needed. This study aimed to determine the role of in situ simulation training during pandemic by using high-fidelity manikin to improve interprofessional communication, skills and teamwork in transferring critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods: This single-blinded randomised control trial included 40 subjects allocated into standard low-fidelity simulator (LFS) and high-fidelity simulator (HFS) groups. Subjects, who were not members of multiprofessional team taking care of patients with COVID-19, in each group were assigned into small groups and joined an online interactive lecture session, two sessions of in-situ simulation and a debriefing session with strict health protocols. The first simulation aimed to teach participants the skills and steps needed. The second simulation aimed to assess transfer skills, communication and teamwork performance, that participants had learnt using a validated, comprehensive assessment tool. Data were analysed using unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney test.

Results: The HFS group showed significantly better overall transfer and communication skills than LFS group (89.70±4.65 vs 77.19±3.6, <0.05 and 100 vs 88.34 (63.33-100), p=0.022, respectively). The HFS group also demonstrated significantly better teamwork performance than the standard LFS group (90 (80-900) vs 80 (70-90), p=0.028).

Conclusion: In situ simulation training using HFS significantly showed better performance than the standard training using LFS in regards to overall transfer and communication skills as well as teamwork performance. The training using HFS may provide a valuable adjunct to improve interprofessional skills, communication and teamwork performance in transferring critically ill patients with COVID-19.Trial registration numberNCT05113823.

Keywords: adult intensive & critical care; medical education & training.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Eiding H, Kongsgaard UE, Braarud A-C. Interhospital transport of critically ill patients: experiences and challenges, a qualitative study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2019;27:27. 10.1186/s13049-019-0604-8
    1. Fanara B, Manzon C, Barbot O, et al. . Recommendations for the intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients. Crit Care 2010;14:R87. 10.1186/cc9018
    1. Lahner D, Nikolic A, Marhofer P, et al. . Incidence of complications in intrahospital transport of critically ill patients--experience in an Austrian university hospital. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2007;119:412–6. 10.1007/s00508-007-0813-4
    1. Caruana M, Culp K. Intrahospital transport of the critically ill adult: a research review and implications. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 1998;17:146–56. 10.1097/00003465-199805000-00005
    1. Baptista R, Pereira F, Martins J. Perception of nursing students on high-fidelity practices: a phenomenological study. J Nurs Educ Pract 2016;6:10–22. 10.5430/jnep.v6n8p10
    1. Goldshtein D, Krensky C, Doshi S, et al. . In situ simulation and its effects on patient outcomes: a systematic review. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning 2020;6:3–9. 10.1136/bmjstel-2018-000387
    1. Chang Y-C, Chou L-T, Lin H-L, et al. . An interprofessional training program for intrahospital transport of critically ill patients: model Build-up and assessment. J Interprof Care 2019;00:1–5. 10.1080/13561820.2018.1560247
    1. Jarden RJ, Quirke S. Improving safety and documentation in intrahospital transport: development of an intrahospital transport tool for critically ill patients. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2010;26:101–7. 10.1016/j.iccn.2009.12.007
    1. Intensive Care Society . Guidance on: the transfer of the critically ill adult, 2019: 1–40.
    1. Williams P, Karuppiah S, Greentree K, et al. . A checklist for intrahospital transport of critically ill patients improves compliance with transportation safety guidelines. Aust Crit Care 2020;33:20–4. 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.02.004
    1. da SR, Amante LN. Checklist for the intrahospital transport of patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Enferm 2015;24:539–47. 10.1590/0104-07072015001772014
    1. Goldshtein D, Krensky C, Doshi S, et al. . In situ simulation and its effects on patient outcomes: a systematic review. Bmj Stel 2020;6:3–9. 10.1136/bmjstel-2018-000387
    1. Allen R, Wanersdorfer K, Zebley J, et al. . Interhospital transfer of critically ill patients because of coronavirus disease 19-Related respiratory failure. Air Med J 2020;39:498–501. 10.1016/j.amj.2020.07.007
    1. Garfinkel E, Lopez S, Troncoso R, et al. . A critical care transport program's innovative approach to safety during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Air Med J 2021;40 pp.:112–4. 10.1016/j.amj.2020.12.002
    1. Lim WY, Ong J, Vimal V, et al. . High-Fidelity simulation training with PPE may optimise resuscitation outcomes in the COVID-19 era. Resuscitation 2021;159:42–4. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.12.015
    1. Martin T. Transporting the adult critically ill patient. Surgery 2012;30:219–24. 10.1016/j.mpsur.2012.02.004
    1. Finan E, Bismilla Z, Whyte HE, et al. . High-Fidelity simulator technology may not be superior to traditional low-fidelity equipment for neonatal resuscitation training. J Perinatol 2012;32:287–92. 10.1038/jp.2011.96
    1. Massoth C, Röder H, Ohlenburg H, et al. . High-Fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Med Educ 2019;19:29. 10.1186/s12909-019-1464-7
    1. Gray A, Bush S, Whiteley S. Secondary transport of the critically ill and injured adult. Emerg Med J 2004;21:281–5. 10.1136/emj.2003.005975
    1. Troncoso RD, Garfinkel EM, Leon D, et al. . Decision making and interventions during Interfacility transport of High-Acuity patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Air Med J 2021;40:220–4. 10.1016/j.amj.2021.04.001
    1. Munshi F, Lababidi H, Alyousef S. Low- versus high-fidelity simulations in teaching and assessing clinical skills. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 2015;10:12–15. 10.1016/j.jtumed.2015.01.008
    1. Tomaka J, Blascovich J, Kelsey RM, et al. . Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993;65:248–60. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.248
    1. Nicolaides M, Theodorou E, Emin EI, et al. . Team performance training for medical students: low vs high fidelity simulation. Ann Med Surg 2020;55:308–15. 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.05.042
    1. Tabah A, Ramanan M, Laupland KB, et al. . Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): an international survey. J Crit Care 2020;59:70–5. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005
    1. Kwon JH, Burnham C-AD, Reske KA, et al. . Assessment of healthcare worker protocol deviations and Self-Contamination during personal protective equipment Donning and Doffing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1077–83. 10.1017/ice.2017.121

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner