13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying and prioritising technical procedures for simulation-based curriculum in paediatrics: a Delphi-based general needs assessment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objectives

          To identify and prioritise technical procedures that should be integrated in a curriculum of simulation-based procedural training in paediatrics using the Delphi method.

          Study design

          National general needs assessment using a Delphi process was completed among 93 key opinion leaders in paediatrics in Denmark. Delphi round 1 identified technical procedures. Round 2 explored frequency of procedures, number of paediatricians performing the procedures, risks and/or discomfort for patients and feasibility for simulation-based training. Round 3 included final elimination and reprioritisation.

          Results

          Response rates in the Delphi rounds were 73%, 71% and 72%. We identified 37 procedures in Delphi round 1, preprioritised in round 2, resulting in a final list of 19 procedures in round 3. Strong correlation between the prioritisation from the second and third Delphi rounds was identified, Spearman’s r of 0.94 (p<0.0001). Top five on the final list were acute neonatal airway management, acute non-neonatal airway management, non-neonatal peripheral intravenous and intraosseous access, neonatal vascular access and advanced heart lung resuscitation.

          Conclusion

          We identified and prioritised 19 technical procedures in paediatrics that are suitable for simulation and may be used as a guide for the development of simulation-based curriculum in paediatrics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

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

          Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Although technology-enhanced simulation has widespread appeal, its effectiveness remains uncertain. A comprehensive synthesis of evidence may inform the use of simulation in health professions education. To summarize the outcomes of technology-enhanced simulation training for health professions learners in comparison with no intervention. Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. Original research in any language evaluating simulation compared with no intervention for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, dentists, and other health care professionals. Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design (curricular integration, distributing training over multiple days, feedback, mastery learning, and repetitive practice), and outcomes. We coded skills (performance in a test setting) separately for time, process, and product measures, and similarly classified patient care behaviors. From a pool of 10,903 articles, we identified 609 eligible studies enrolling 35,226 trainees. Of these, 137 were randomized studies, 67 were nonrandomized studies with 2 or more groups, and 405 used a single-group pretest-posttest design. We pooled effect sizes using random effects. Heterogeneity was large (I(2)>50%) in all main analyses. In comparison with no intervention, pooled effect sizes were 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.35) for knowledge outcomes (n = 118 studies), 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03-1.25) for time skills (n = 210), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.03-1.16) for process skills (n = 426), 1.18 (95% CI, 0.98-1.37) for product skills (n = 54), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.47-1.10) for time behaviors (n = 20), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.96) for other behaviors (n = 50), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.34-0.66) for direct effects on patients (n = 32). Subgroup analyses revealed no consistent statistically significant interactions between simulation training and instructional design features or study quality. In comparison with no intervention, technology-enhanced simulation training in health professions education is consistently associated with large effects for outcomes of knowledge, skills, and behaviors and moderate effects for patient-related outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 6. Paediatric life support.

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

              Cost: the missing outcome in simulation-based medical education research: a systematic review.

              The costs involved with technology-enhanced simulation remain unknown. Appraising the value of simulation-based medical education (SBME) requires complete accounting and reporting of cost. We sought to summarize the quantity and quality of studies that contain an economic analysis of SBME for the training of health professions learners. We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011. Articles reporting original research in any language evaluating the cost of simulation, in comparison with nonstimulation instruction or another simulation intervention, for training practicing and student physicians, nurses, and other health professionals were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate evaluated study quality and abstracted information on learners, instructional design, cost elements, and outcomes. From a pool of 10,903 articles we identified 967 comparative studies. Of these, 59 studies (6.1%) reported any cost elements and 15 (1.6%) provided information on cost compared with another instructional approach. We identified 11 cost components reported, most often the cost of the simulator (n = 42 studies; 71%) and training materials (n = 21; 36%). Ten potential cost components were never reported. The median number of cost components reported per study was 2 (range, 1-9). Only 12 studies (20%) reported cost in the Results section; most reported it in the Discussion (n = 34; 58%). Cost reporting in SBME research is infrequent and incomplete. We propose a comprehensive model for accounting and reporting costs in SBME. Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Paediatr Open
                BMJ Paediatr Open
                bmjpo
                bmjpo
                BMJ Paediatrics Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2399-9772
                2020
                18 August 2020
                : 4
                : 1
                : e000697
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus, Denmark
                [2 ] departmentCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES) , University of Copenhagen , Kobenhavn, Denmark
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Clinical Medicine , Aarhus University , Aarhus, Denmark
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Clinical Development , Odense University Hospital , Odense, Denmark
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Paediatrics , Viborg Regional Hospital , Viborg, Denmark
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Signe Thim; signe.thim@ 123456rm.dk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4532-2869
                Article
                bmjpo-2020-000697
                10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000697
                7437683
                233df43e-4d5e-4717-96f7-f8d4aa8cafcc
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 07 April 2020
                : 04 July 2020
                : 08 July 2020
                Categories
                Medical Education
                1506
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                clinical procedures,general paediatrics,medical education

                Comments

                Comment on this article