37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Improving Patient Safety through Simulation Training in Anesthesiology: Where Are We?

      review-article
      * , ,
      Anesthesiology Research and Practice
      Hindawi Publishing Corporation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There have been colossal technological advances in the use of simulation in anesthesiology in the past 2 decades. Over the years, the use of simulation has gone from low fidelity to high fidelity models that mimic human responses in a startlingly realistic manner, extremely life-like mannequin that breathes, generates E.K.G, and has pulses, heart sounds, and an airway that can be programmed for different degrees of obstruction. Simulation in anesthesiology is no longer a research fascination but an integral part of resident education and one of ACGME requirements for resident graduation. Simulation training has been objectively shown to increase the skill-set of anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology is leading the movement in patient safety. It is rational to assume a relationship between simulation training and patient safety. Nevertheless there has not been a demonstrable improvement in patient outcomes with simulation training. Larger prospective studies that evaluate the improvement in patient outcomes are needed to justify the integration of simulation training in resident education but ample number of studies in the past 5 years do show a definite benefit of using simulation in anesthesiology training. This paper gives a brief overview of the history and evolution of use of simulation in anesthesiology and highlights some of the more recent studies that have advanced simulation-based training.

          Related collections

          Most cited references125

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          On error management: lessons from aviation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Management of the difficult airway: a closed claims analysis.

            The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns of liability associated with malpractice claims arising from management of the difficult airway. Using the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims database, the authors examined 179 claims for difficult airway management between 1985 and 1999 where a supplemental data collection tool was used and focused on airway management, outcomes, and the role of the 1993 Difficult Airway Guidelines in litigation. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression analysis compared risk factors for death or brain damage (death/BD) from two time periods: 1985-1992 and 1993-1999. Difficult airway claims arose throughout the perioperative period: 67% upon induction, 15% during surgery, 12% at extubation, and 5% during recovery. Death/BD with induction of anesthesia decreased in 1993-1999 (35%) compared with 1985-1992 (62%; P < 0.05; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.63; P = 0.003). In contrast, death/BD associated with other phases of anesthesia did not significantly change over the time periods. The odds of death/BD were increased by the development of an airway emergency (odds ratio, 14.98; 95% confidence interval, 6.37-35.27; P < 0.001). During airway emergencies, persistent intubation attempts were associated with death/BD (P < 0.05). Since 1993, the Airway Guidelines were used to defend care (8%) and criticize care (3%). Death/BD in claims from difficult airway management associated with induction of anesthesia but not other phases of anesthesia decreased in 1993-1999 compared with 1985-1992. Development of additional management strategies for difficult airways encountered during maintenance, emergence, or recovery from anesthesia may improve patient safety.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

              Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction. Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011. Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction. Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects. From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78). Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2) > 50 % in most analyses). Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesthesiol Res Pract
                Anesthesiol Res Pract
                ARP
                Anesthesiology Research and Practice
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1687-6962
                1687-6970
                2016
                1 February 2016
                : 2016
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Drexel University College of Medicine, Hahnemann University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Getúlio R. de Oliveira Filho

                Article
                10.1155/2016/4237523
                4753320
                26949389
                0d439569-ccd3-4817-b0b8-eb6932a4256b
                Copyright © 2016 Michael Green et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Review Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article