Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Emergency caesarean section (ECS) is an effective method for rapid termination of pregnancy and for saving maternal and foetal life in emergencies. Experts recommend that the interval from decision of operation to the decision to delivery interval (DDI) should be shortened as much as possible. Studies have shown that improving communication skills among staff by performing simulation drills shortens DDI, thus reducing the occurrence of adverse obstetric events and protecting maternal and child safety. In situ simulation (ISS) training is a simulation-based training approach for clinical team members conducted in a real-world clinical setting. In August 2020, Anhui Maternal and Child Health Hospital began ISS training on the rapid obstetric response team (RRT) in our hospital area for emergency caesarean section. This study aimed to investigate the effect of implementing in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section on maternal and child outcomes by comparing maternal and child-related data on emergency caesarean section in two hospital areas. Methods Data on cases of emergency caesarean delivery implemented in two hospital districts from August 2020 to August 2022 were collected: 19 in the untrained group and 26 in the training group. The two groups were compared concerning the interval from the decision of operation to the decision to delivery interval (DDI), the interval from the decision of operation to the initiation of skin incision, the interval from skin incision to the decision to delivery interval, and the neonatal situation. Results Primary outcome comparison: The training group had a significantly shorter interval between the DDI compared to the untrained group (8.14 ± 3.13 vs. 11.03 ± 3.52, P  = 0.006). Secondary outcomes comparison: The training group had a significantly shorter interval between the decision to cut skin compared to the untrained group (6.45 ± 2.21 vs. 9.95 ± 4.02, P  = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the interval between cutting skin and infant delivery between the two groups (2.24 ± 0.08 vs. 2.18 ± 0.13, P  > 0.05). Additionally, the Apgar score at 1 min after birth was higher in the training group compared to the untrained group (7.29 ± 2.38 vs. 6.04 ± 1.46, P  < 0.05). Conclusions The DDI for emergency caesarean section procedures can be significantly shortened, and neonatal Apgar scores at 1 min improved by implementing in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section in obstetric rapid response teams. In situ simulation training is an effective tool for training in emergency caesarean section procedures and is worth promoting.

Positive pressure ventilation of the non-breathing newborn is a critical and time-sensitive intervention, considered to be the cornerstone of resuscitation. Many healthcare providers working in delivery units in high-resource settings have little opportunity to practise this skill in real life, affecting their performance when called upon to resuscitate a newborn. Low-dose, high-frequency simulation training has shown promise in low-resource settings, improving ventilation performance and changing practice in the clinical situation. We performed a randomised controlled study of low-dose, high-frequency simulation training for maintenance of ventilation competence in a multidisciplinary staff in a busy teaching hospital in Norway. We hypothesised that participants training according to a low-dose, high-frequency protocol would perform better than those training as they wished. Our results did not support this, although the majority of protocol participants were unable to achieve training targets. Subgroup analysis comparing no training to at least monthly training did identify a clear benefit to regular simulation practice. Simulated ventilation competence improved significantly for all participants over the course of the study. We conclude that frequent, short, simulation-based training can foster and maintain newborn ventilation skills in a multidisciplinary delivery unit staff in a high-resource setting.

Background Morbidity and Mortality conference provides the necessary improvement measures for patient safety. However, they are an underused resource mainly because the conclusions to be drawn from the discussion and their implications for practice are not always well integrated by inpatient care teams. We therefore propose in this study two interventions to optimise their effectiveness: a passive feedback with wide dissemination by e-mail and/or on paper of the results of the Morbidity and Mortality conference to inpatient care teams and an active feedback with in situ inter-professional simulation-training programme in which scenarios will be based on cases studied in Morbidity and Mortality conference. In the present study, we hypothesise that the greatest reduction the occurrence of adverse event will be in the active feedback arm. Methods A cluster randomised controlled study will be performed at four study sites. The unit of randomisation is wards within the study sites. Fifteen wards will be randomly assigned to passive feedback, active feedback, or a standard MMC (control arm). Passive feedback and active feedback arms will be compared to standard arm in terms of occurrence of adverse events. The trigger tool methodology used to identify adverse events is a retrospective review of inpatient records using “triggers”: an adverse event is defined as a patient’s stay with at least one positive trigger. Discussion The in situ simulation training based on cases processed in Morbidity and Mortality conference is built according to the main topics identified for the successful implementation of healthcare simulation in patient safety programmes: technical skills, nontechnical skills, assessment, effectiveness, and system probing. The in situ simulation-training programme conducted as part of the study has the potential to improve patient safety during hospitalisation. We therefore expect the greatest reduction in the occurrence of adverse events in patients hospitalised in the active feedback arm. This expected result would have a direct impact on patient safety and would place in situ simulation at the highest level of the Kirkpatrick model. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02771613. Registered on May 12, 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set can be found within the protocol.

Face mask ventilation of apnoeic neonates is an essential skill. However, many non-paediatric healthcare personnel (HCP) in high-resource childbirth facilities receive little hands-on real-life practice. Simulation training aims to bridge this gap by enabling skill acquisition and maintenance. Success may rely on how closely a simulator mimics the clinical conditions faced by HCPs during neonatal resuscitation. Using a novel, low-cost, high-fidelity simulator designed to train newborn ventilation skills, we compared objective measures of ventilation derived from the new manikin and from real newborns, both ventilated by the same group of experienced paediatricians. Simulated and clinical ventilation sequences were paired according to similar duration of ventilation required to achieve success. We found consistencies between manikin and neonatal positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in generated peak inflating pressure (PIP), mask leak and comparable expired tidal volume (eVT), but positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was lower in manikin ventilation. Correlations between PIP, eVT and leak followed a consistent pattern for manikin and neonatal PPV, with a negative relationship between eVT and leak being the only significant correlation. Airway obstruction occurred with the same frequency in the manikin and newborns. These findings support the fidelity of the manikin in simulating clinical conditions encountered during real newborn ventilation. Two limitations of the simulator provide focus for further improvements.

Background Anaesthesia personnel are an integral part of an interprofessional operating room-team; hence, team-based training in non-technical skills (NTS) are important in preventing adverse events. Quite a few studies have been done on interprofessional in situ simulation-based team training (SBTT). However, research on anaesthesia personnel’s experiences and the significance for transfer of learning to clinical practice is limited. The aim of this study is to explore anaesthesia personnel’s experience from interprofessional in situ SBTT in NTS and its significance for transfer of learning to clinical practice. Methods Follow-up focus group interviews with anaesthesia personnel, who had taken part in interprofessional in situ SBTT were conducted. A qualitative inductive content analysis was performed. Results Anaesthesia personnel experienced that interprofessional in situ SBTT motivated transfer of learning and provided the opportunity to be aware of own practice regarding NTS and teamwork. One main category, ‘interprofessional in situ SBTT as a contributor to enhance anaesthesia practice’ and three generic categories, ‘interprofessional in situ SBTT motivates learning and improves NTS’, ‘realism in SBTT is important for learning outcome’, and ‘SBTT increases the awareness of teamwork’ illustrated their experiences. Conclusions Participants in the interprofessional in situ SBTT gained experiences in coping with emotions and demanding situations, which could be significant for transfer of learning essential for clinical practice. Herein communication and decision-making were highlighted as important learning objectives. Furthermore, participants emphasized the importance of realism and fidelity and debriefing in the learning design.

Background Annually, 1.5 million intrapartum-related deaths occur; fresh stillbirths and early newborn deaths. Most of these deaths are preventable with skilled ventilation starting within the first minute of life. Helping Babies Breathe is an educational program shown to improve simulated skills in newborn resuscitation. However, translation into clinical practice remains a challenge. The aim was to describe changes in clinical resuscitation and perinatal outcomes (i.e., fresh stillbirths and 24-h newborn deaths) after introducing a novel simulator (phase 1) and then local champions (phase 2) to facilitate ongoing Helping Babies Breathe skill and scenario simulation training. Methods This is a 3-year prospective before/after (2 phases) clinical observational study in Tanzania. Research assistants observed all deliveries from September 2015 through August 2018 and recorded labor/newborn information and perinatal outcomes. A novel simulator with automatic feedback to stimulate self-guided skill training was introduced in September 2016. Local champions were introduced in October 2017 to motivate midwives for weekly training, also team simulations. Results The study included 10,481 births. Midwives had practiced self-guided skill training during the last week prior to a real newborn resuscitation in 34% of cases during baseline, 30% in phase 1, and 71% in phase 2. Most real resuscitations were provided by midwives, increasing from 66% in the baseline, to 77% in phase 1, and further to 83% in phase 2. The median time from birth to first ventilation decreased between baseline and phase 2 from 118 (85–165) to 101 (72–150) s, and time pauses during ventilation decreased from 28 to 16%. Ventilations initiated within the first minute did not change significantly (13–16%). The proportion of high-risk deliveries increased during the study period, while perinatal mortality remained unchanged. Conclusions This study reports a gradual improvement in real newborn resuscitation skills after introducing a novel simulator and then local champions. The frequency of trainings increased first after the introduction of motivating champions. Time from birth to first ventilation decreased; still, merely 16% of newborns received ventilation within the first minute as recommended. This is a remaining challenge that may require more targeted team-scenario training and quality improvement efforts to improve.

La simulation in situ est une simulation qui \" se déroule dans le cadre ou l'environnement habituel de prise en charge des patients, avec pour objectif d'atteindre un haut niveau de fidélité et de réalisme \". En médecine d'urgence, elle offre aux équipes soignantes la possibilité de s'entraîner dans leur environnement clinique et d'identifier leurs axes de progression aux niveaux individuels, collectifs et systémiques, tout en travaillant en interprofessionnalité. Elle permet également d'identifier les menaces potentielles d'un système, de tester de futures organisations et d'évaluer le travail des professionnels de santé. Son utilisation requiert une mise en place spécifique qui débute par l'identification de personnes ressources dans les domaines cliniques, de la formation et administratifs, puis par l'identification d'objectifs pédagogiques et de créneaux adaptés afin de préserver la sécurité des patients. La sécurité psychologique des participants est assurée grâce à l'implication d'enseignants formés à la simulation, mais également par une organisation qui tient compte des particularités de la médecine d'urgence. Enfin, son utilisation requiert des capacités d'adaptation et de flexibilité de la part des apprenants et des formateurs. Sa mise en place dans les services d'urgences ne doit pas compromettre la sécurité des soins et doit ainsi suivre des critères de précaution à respecter pour éviter tout risque pour le patient. Son efficacité pour les patients reste toujours à démontrer, mais elle permet néanmoins un transfert d'apprentissage pertinent, un réalisme apprécié des participants et la réflexion autour d'éléments systémiques, ce qui n'est pas toujours possible dans un centre de simulation. In situ simulation is defined as a simulation that \"takes place in the actual patient care setting or environment in an effort to achieve a high level of fidelity and realism\". In situ simulation is a pragmatic solution to facilitate access for all emergency professionals for continuous training aligned to their educational needs working in interprofessional teams. It offers professionals the opportunity to identify areas of improvement. It may also serve as a tool to identify potential safety threats, to crash test future organizations or systems, and to evaluate individual skills. A specific setup is required starting with the identification of clinical, training, and administrative resources, followed by the identification of educational objectives and appropriate time slots to ensure patient safety. The psychological safety of the participants must be ensured by trained instructors through well-conducted debriefings. Finally, as with any health-care intervention, certain precautions must be considered. Indeed, in situ simulation must in no way jeopardize the safety of patients present in the emergency room during training. For this reason, there are a certain number of no-go criteria that must be respected to avoid any risk to patient safety. The impact of in situ simulation on patient outcome remains to be demonstrated, but it nevertheless allows a relevant transfer of learning, a realism appreciated by the participants and the reflection on systemic elements, which is not always possible in a simulation center.

Background Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations. Discussion Non-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed. Summary Based on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of in situ simulation-based training on quality indicators of patient care at a level IV neonatal intensive care unit. A before-and-after, non-controlled quality improvement study was performed at the Division of Neonatology, Medical University of Graz. The educational intervention comprised a period of 4 months, with structured in situ simulation training delivered regularly for neonatal providers and nurses in interprofessional teams. The primary study outcome was the quality of non-technical skills and team interaction during actual postnatal stabilization and resuscitation. This was assessed using video recording during two 2-month observational phases before (pre-training) and after the educational intervention (post-training). Delivery room video recordings were assessed by two external, blinded neonatologists using the Anaesthetists’ Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) score. Furthermore, we collected clinical patient data from video-recorded neonates during the pre- and post-training periods, and training participants’ individual knowledge of neonatal resuscitation guidelines was assessed using a before- and after-questionnaire. A total of 48 healthcare professionals participated in 41 in situ simulation trainings. The level of non-technical skills and team interaction was already high in the pre-training period, and it did not further improve afterwards. Nonetheless, we observed a significant increase in the teamwork event “evaluation of plans” (0.5 [IQR 0.0–1.0] versus 1.0 [1.0–2.0], p  = 0.049). Following the educational intervention, training participants’ knowledge of neonatal resuscitation guidelines significantly improved, although there were no differences in secondary clinical outcome parameters. Conclusion : We have successfully implemented a neonatal in situ simulation training programme. The observed improvement in one teamwork event category in the post-training period demonstrates the effectiveness of the training curriculum, while also showing the potential of in situ simulation training for improving postnatal care and, ultimately, patient outcome. What is Known: • In situ simulation-based training is conducted in the real healthcare environment, thus promoting experiential learning which is closely aligned with providers’ actual work. • In situ simulation-based training may offer an additional benefit for patient outcomes in comparison to other instructional methodologies. What is New: • This observational study investigated translational patient outcomes in preterm neonates before and after delivery of high-frequency in situ simulation-based training at a level IV neonatal intensive care unit. • There was a significant increase in the frequency of one major teamwork event following the delivery of in situ simulation-based training, indicating a notable improvement in the non-technical skills domain, which is closely linked to actual team performance.

Background To improve patient outcomes and provider team practice, the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC) created the Simulating Success quality improvement program to assist hospitals in implementing a neonatal resuscitation training curriculum. This study aimed to examine the costs associated with the design and implementation of the Simulating Success program. Methods From 2017–2020, a total of 14 sites participated in the Simulating Success program and 4 of them systematically collected resource utilization data. Using a micro-costing approach, we examined costs for the design and implementation of the program occurring at CPQCC and the 4 study sites. Data collection forms were used to track personnel time, equipment/supplies, space use, and travel (including transportation, food, and lodging). Cost analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective. Costs incurred by CPQCC were allocated to participant sites and then combined with site-specific costs to estimate the mean cost per site, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI). Cost estimates were inflation-adjusted to 2022 U.S. dollars. Results Designing and implementing the Simulating Success program cost $228,148.36 at CPQCC, with personnel cost accounting for the largest share (92.2%), followed by program-related travel (6.1%), equipment/supplies (1.5%), and space use (0.2%). Allocating these costs across participant sites and accounting for site-specific resource utilizations resulted in a mean cost of $39,210.69 per participant site (95% CI: $34,094.52-$44,326.86). In sensitivity analysis varying several study assumptions (e.g., number of participant sites, exclusion of design costs, and useful life span of manikins), the mean cost per site changed from $35,645.22 to $39,935.73. At all four sites, monthly cost of other neonatal resuscitation training was lower during the program implementation period (mean = $1,112.52 per site) than pre-implementation period (mean = $2,504.01 per site). In the 3 months after the Simulating Success program ended, monthly cost of neonatal resuscitation training was also lower than the pre-implementation period at two of the four sites. Conclusions Establishing a multi-site neonatal in situ simulation program requires investment of sufficient resources. However, such programs may have financial and non-financial benefits in the long run by offsetting the need for other neonatal resuscitation training and improving practice.