Simulation-based multiprofessional obstetric anaesthesia training conducted in situ versus off-site leads to similar individual and team outcomes: a randomised educational trial

Jette Led Sørensen, Cees van der Vleuten, Susanne Rosthøj, Doris Østergaard, Vicki LeBlanc, Marianne Johansen, Kim Ekelund, Liis Starkopf, Jane Lindschou, Christian Gluud, Pia Weikop, Bent Ottesen, Jette Led Sørensen, Cees van der Vleuten, Susanne Rosthøj, Doris Østergaard, Vicki LeBlanc, Marianne Johansen, Kim Ekelund, Liis Starkopf, Jane Lindschou, Christian Gluud, Pia Weikop, Bent Ottesen

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effect of in situ simulation (ISS) versus off-site simulation (OSS) on knowledge, patient safety attitude, stress, motivation, perceptions of simulation, team performance and organisational impact.

Design: Investigator-initiated single-centre randomised superiority educational trial.

Setting: Obstetrics and anaesthesiology departments, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Participants: 100 participants in teams of 10, comprising midwives, specialised midwives, auxiliary nurses, nurse anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses, and consultant doctors and trainees in obstetrics and anaesthesiology.

Interventions: Two multiprofessional simulations (clinical management of an emergency caesarean section and a postpartum haemorrhage scenario) were conducted in teams of 10 in the ISS versus the OSS setting.

Primary outcome: Knowledge assessed by a multiple choice question test.

Exploratory outcomes: Individual outcomes: scores on the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, stress measurements (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, cognitive appraisal and salivary cortisol), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and perceptions of simulations. Team outcome: video assessment of team performance. Organisational impact: suggestions for organisational changes.

Results: The trial was conducted from April to June 2013. No differences between the two groups were found for the multiple choice question test, patient safety attitude, stress measurements, motivation or the evaluation of the simulations. The participants in the ISS group scored the authenticity of the simulation significantly higher than did the participants in the OSS group. Expert video assessment of team performance showed no differences between the ISS versus the OSS group. The ISS group provided more ideas and suggestions for changes at the organisational level.

Conclusions: In this randomised trial, no significant differences were found regarding knowledge, patient safety attitude, motivation or stress measurements when comparing ISS versus OSS. Although participant perception of the authenticity of ISS versus OSS differed significantly, there were no differences in other outcomes between the groups except that the ISS group generated more suggestions for organisational changes.

Trial registration number: NCT01792674.

Keywords: MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING; OBSTETRICS; in situ simulation; interprofessional; patient simulation.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Timing of the simulations and measurement of stress: Objective stress was measured by salivary cortisol and subjective stress was measured by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and cognitive appraisal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram for participants in a trial determining the effects of ISS versus OSS on (1) primary outcome: knowledge (MCQ test); and (2) exploratory outcomes: patient safety attitudes (SAQ), stress (salivary cortisol, STAI, CA), motivation (IMI), perceptions of simulation (evaluation questionnaire), video-assessed team performance (TEAM) and organisational impact.

References

    1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER et al. . Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2005;27:10–28. 10.1080/01421590500046924
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER et al. . A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ 2010;44:50–63. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x
    1. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS et al. . Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach 2013;35:e1511–30. 10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632
    1. Merien AE, Van der Ven J, Mol BW et al. . Multidisciplinary team training in a simulation setting for acute obstetric emergencies: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1021–31. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d9f4cd
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH et al. . A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ 2014;48:375–85. 10.1111/medu.12391
    1. Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ 2012;46:636–47. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04243.x
    1. Beaubien JM, Baker DP. The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go? Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):i51–6. 10.1136/qshc.2004.009845
    1. Rosen MA, Hunt EA, Pronovost PJ et al. . In situ simulation in continuing education for the health care professions: a systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012;32:243–54. 10.1002/chp.21152
    1. Riley W, Davis S, Miller KM et al. . Detecting breaches in defensive barriers using in situ simulation for obstetric emergencies. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19(Suppl 3):i53–6. 10.1136/qshc.2010.040311
    1. Guise JM, Lowe NK, Deering S et al. . Mobile in situ obstetric emergency simulation and teamwork training to improve maternal-fetal safety in hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2010;36:443–53.
    1. Walker ST, Sevdalis N, McKay A et al. . Unannounced in situ simulations: integrating training and clinical practice. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:453–8. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000986
    1. Patterson MD, Geis GL, Falcone RA et al. . In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:468–77. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000942
    1. Patterson MD, Geis GL, Lemaster T et al. . Impact of multidisciplinary simulation-based training on patient safety in a paediatric emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:383–93. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000951
    1. Stocker M, Burmester M, Allen M. Optimisation of simulated team training through the application of learning theories: a debate for a conceptual framework. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:69 10.1186/1472-6920-14-69
    1. Sullivan NJ, Duval-Arnould J, Twilley M et al. . Simulation exercise to improve retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation priorities for in-hospital cardiac arrests: a randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation 2014;86C:6–13. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.10.021
    1. Rubio-Gurung S, Putet G, Touzet S et al. . In situ simulation training for neonatal resuscitation: an RCT. Pediatrics 2014;134:e790–7. 10.1542/peds.2013-3988
    1. Couto TB, Kerrey BT, Taylor RG et al. . Teamwork skills in actual, in situ, and in-center pediatric emergencies: performance levels across settings and perceptions of comparative educational impact. Simul Healthc 2015;10:76–84. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000081
    1. LeBlanc VR. The effects of acute stress on performance: implications for health professions education. Acad Med 2009;84:S25–33. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b37b8f
    1. LeBlanc VR, Manser T, Weinger MB et al. . The study of factors affecting human and systems performance in healthcare using simulation. Simul Healthc 2011;6(Suppl):S24–9. 10.1097/SIH.0b013e318229f5c8
    1. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Aggarwal R et al. . Stress impairs psychomotor performance in novice laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 2010;24:2588–93. 10.1007/s00464-010-1013-2
    1. Harvey A, Nathens AB, Bandiera G et al. . Threat and challenge: cognitive appraisal and stress responses in simulated trauma resuscitations. Med Educ 2010;44:587–94. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03634.x
    1. Harvey A, Bandiera G, Nathens AB et al. . Impact of stress on resident performance in simulated trauma scenarios. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;72:497–503.
    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. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, van AM et al. . Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: a review of the literature. Med Teach 2011;33:e242–62. 10.3109/0142159X.2011.558539
    1. Ten Cate TJ, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59. Med Teach 2011;33:961–73. 10.3109/0142159X.2011.595435
    1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 2000;25:54–67. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
    1. Drife J. Reducing risk in obstetrics. Qual Health Care 1995;4:108–14. 10.1136/qshc.4.2.108
    1. Gold KJ, Kuznia AL, Hayward RA. How physicians cope with stillbirth or neonatal death: a national survey of obstetricians. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:29–34. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31817d0582
    1. Veltman LL. Getting to havarti: moving toward patient safety in obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1146–50. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000287066.13389.8c
    1. Pronovost PJ, Holzmueller CG, Ennen CS et al. . Overview of progress in patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:5–10. 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.001
    1. Hove LD, Bock J, Christoffersen JK et al. . Analysis of 127 peripartum hypoxic brain injuries from closed claims registered by the Danish Patient Insurance Association. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:72–5. 10.1080/00016340701797567
    1. Berglund S, Grunewald C, Pettersson H et al. . Severe asphyxia due to delivery-related malpractice in Sweden 1990–2005. BJOG 2008;115:316–23. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01602.x
    1. Cantwell R, Clutton-Brock T, Cooper G et al. . Saving Mothers’ Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–2008. The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG 2011;118(Suppl 1):1–203.
    1. Bodker B, Hvidman L, Weber T et al. . Maternal deaths in Denmark 2002–2006. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:556–62. 10.1080/00016340902897992
    1. Johannsson H, Ayida G, Sadler C. Faking it? Simulation in the training of obstetricians and gynaecologists. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005;17:557–61. 10.1097/01.gco.0000188726.45998.97
    1. Sørensen JL, Van der Vleuten C, Lindschou J et al. . ‘In situ simulation’ versus ‘off site simulation’ in obstetric emergencies and their effect on knowledge, safety attitudes, team performance, stress, and motivation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:220 10.1186/1745-6215-14-220
    1. Boet S, Bould MD, Layat BC et al. . Twelve tips for a successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education session. Med Teach 2014;36:853–7. 10.3109/0142159X.2014.923558
    1. SimMom Mannequin 2014. .
    1. Royal College of Obstetricans and Gynaecologists course: PROMPT, Train the trainers 2015. .
    1. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL et al. . There's no such thing as “nonjudgmental” debriefing: a theory and method for debriefing with good judgment. Simul Healthc 2006;1:49–55. 10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006
    1. Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S et al. . The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach 2012;34:e421–44. 10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
    1. Sørensen JL, Thellensen L, Strandbygaard J et al. . Development of a knowledge test for multi-disciplinary emergency training: a review and an example. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2015;59:123–33. 10.1111/aas.12428
    1. Remmen R, Scherpbier A, Denekens J et al. . Correlation of a written test of skills and a performance based test: a study in two traditional medical schools. Med Teach 2001;23:29–32. 10.1080/0142159002005541
    1. Crofts JF, Ellis D, Draycott TJ et al. . Change in knowledge of midwives and obstetricians following obstetric emergency training: a randomised controlled trial of local hospital, simulation centre and teamwork training. BJOG 2007;114:1534–41. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01493.x
    1. Sørensen JL, Løkkegaard E, Johansen M et al. . The implementation and evaluation of a mandatory multi-professional obstetric skills training program. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:1107–17. 10.1080/00016340903176834
    1. Kristensen S, Sabroe S, Bartels P et al. . Adaption and validation of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire for the Danish hospital setting. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:149–60. 10.2147/CLEP.S75560
    1. Sexton JB, Helmreich RL, Neilands TB et al. . The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:44 10.1186/1472-6963-6-44
    1. Deilkas ET, Hofoss D. Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Generic version (Short Form 2006). BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:191 10.1186/1472-6963-8-191
    1. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.
    1. Bech P. [Klinisk psykometri]. 1.udgave, 2 oplag ed. Munksgaard Danmark, København, Danmark, 2011.
    1. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 2015. .
    1. Cooper S, Cant R, Porter J et al. . Rating medical emergency teamwork performance: development of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Resuscitation 2010;81:446–52. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.027
    1. McKay A, Walker ST, Brett SJ et al. . Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools. Resuscitation 2012;83:1478–83. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.04.015
    1. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S et al. . Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:iii–92.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR et al. . Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012;345:e5661 10.1136/bmj.e5661
    1. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13–22. 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Statist Soc Ser B (Methodological) 1995;57:289–300.
    1. Carayon P, Schoofs HA, Karsh BT et al. . Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15(Suppl 1):i50–8. 10.1136/qshc.2005.015842
    1. Sørensen JL, Lottrup P, Vleuten van der C et al. . Unannounced in situ simulation of obstetric emergencies: staff perceptions and organisational impact. Postgrad Med J 2014;90:622–9. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132280
    1. Kobayashi L, Parchuri R, Gardiner FG et al. . Use of in situ simulation and human factors engineering to assess and improve emergency department clinical systems for timely telemetry-based detection of life-threatening arrhythmias. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:72–83. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001134
    1. Wheeler DS, Geis G, Mack EH et al. . High-reliability emergency response teams in the hospital: improving quality and safety using in situ simulation training. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:507–14. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000931
    1. Durning SJ, Artino AR Jr, Pangaro LN et al. . Perspective: redefining context in the clinical encounter: implications for research and training in medical education. Acad Med 2010;85:894–901. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7427c
    1. Durning SJ, Artino AR. Situativity theory: a perspective on how participants and the environment can interact: AMEE Guide no. 52. Med Teach 2011;33:188–99. 10.3109/0142159X.2011.550965
    1. Koens F, Mann KV, Custers EJ et al. . Analysing the concept of context in medical education. Med Educ 2005;39:1243–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02338.x
    1. Teteris E, Fraser K, Wright B et al. . Does training learners on simulators benefit real patients? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2012;17:137–44. 10.1007/s10459-011-9304-5
    1. Grierson LE. Information processing, specificity of practice, and the transfer of learning: considerations for reconsidering fidelity. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2014;19:281–9. 10.1007/s10459-014-9504-x
    1. Ellis D, Crofts JF, Hunt LP et al. . Hospital, simulation center, and teamwork training for eclampsia management: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:723–31. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181637a82
    1. Sharma S, Boet S, Kitto S et al. . Interprofessional simulated learning: the need for ‘sociological fidelity’. J Interprof Care 2011;25:81–3. 10.3109/13561820.2011.556514
    1. Sørensen JL, Navne LE, Martin HM et al. . Clarifying the learning experiences of healthcare professionals with in situ versus off site simulation-based medical education: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008345.
    1. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci 2006;17:249–55. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008;42:959–66. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x
    1. Schwendimann R, Zimmermann N, Kung K et al. . Variation in safety culture dimensions within and between US and Swiss Hospital Units: an exploratory study. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:32–41. 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000446
    1. Sexton JB, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel CA et al. . Assessing and improving safety climate in a large cohort of intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2011;39:934–9. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318206d26c
    1. Shoushtarian M, Barnett M, McMahon F et al. . Impact of introducing Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training (PROMPT) into maternity units in Victoria, Australia. BJOG 2014;121:1710–18. 10.1111/1471-0528.12767
    1. Siassakos D, Fox R, Hunt L et al. . Attitudes toward safety and teamwork in a maternity unit with embedded team training. Am J Med Qual 2011;26:132–7. 10.1177/1062860610373379
    1. Pottier P, Hardouin JB, Dejoie T et al. . Stress responses in medical students in ambulatory and in-hospital patient consultations. Med Educ 2011;45:678–87. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03935.x
    1. Piquette D, Tarshis J, Sinuff T et al. . Impact of acute stress on resident performance during simulated resuscitation episodes: a prospective randomized cross-over study. Teach Learn Med 2014;26:9–16. 10.1080/10401334.2014.859932
    1. Reeves S, Goldman J. Medical education in an interprofessional context. In: Dornan T, Mann K, Scherpbier A et al., eds Medical education: theory and practice. Edinburgh, London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia, St Louis, Sydney, Toronto: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, 2011:51–64.
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL et al. . Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601–5. 10.1136/
    1. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG et al. . Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:429–38. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J et al. . Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2
    1. Lingard L. Rethinking Competence in the Context of teamwork. In: Hodges B, Lingard L, eds. The question of competence. Reconsidering medical education in the twenty-first century. 1st edn. New York: ILR Press an imprent of Cornell University Press, 2012:42–69.
    1. van der Vleuten C, Van Luyk SJ, Beckers HJ. A written test as an alternative to performance testing. Med Educ 1989;23: 97–107. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1989.tb00819.x
    1. Kramer AW, Jansen JJ, Zuithoff P et al. . Predictive validity of a written knowledge test of skills for an OSCE in postgraduate training for general practice. Med Educ 2002;36:812–19. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01297.x
    1. Ram P, van der Vleuten C, Rethans JJ et al. . Assessment in general practice: the predictive value of written-knowledge tests and a multiple-station examination for actual medical performance in daily practice. Med Educ 1999;33:197–203. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00280.x
    1. Arthur W, Bennett W, Stanush PL et al. . Factors that influence skill decay and retention: a quantitative review and analysis. Hum Perform 1998;11:57–101. 10.1207/s15327043hup1101_3
    1. Hamilton R. Nurses’ knowledge and skill retention following cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 2005;51:288–97. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03491.x
    1. Trevisanuto D, Ferrarese P, Cavicchioli P et al. . Knowledge gained by pediatric residents after neonatal resuscitation program courses. Paediatr Anaesth 2005;15:944–7. 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2005.01589.x
    1. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Winkel P et al. . The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance—a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:34 10.1186/1471-2288-14-34
    1. Fraenkal JR, Wallen NE, Hyde A. Internal validity. In: Fraenkal JR, Wallen NE, Hyde A, eds. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012:166–83.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться