The Implementation of a Collaborative Pediatric Telesimulation Intervention in Rural Critical Access Hospitals.

Marc Auerbach, Mary Patterson, William A Mills, Jessica Katznelson
Author Information
  1. Marc Auerbach: Departments of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics Yale University School of Medicine New Haven CT USA. ORCID
  2. Mary Patterson: Department of Emergency Medicine University of Florida College of Medicine Gainsville FL USA.
  3. William A Mills: Department of Pediatrics University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill NC USA.
  4. Jessica Katznelson: Department of Pediatrics Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore MD USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over 5.8 million pediatric visits to rural emergency department (EDs) occur each year in the United States. Most rural EDs care for less than five pediatric patients per day and are not well prepared for pediatrics. Simulation has been associated with improvements in pediatric preparedness. The implementation of pediatric simulation in rural settings is challenging due to limited access to equipment and pediatric specialists. Telesimulation involves a remote facilitator interacting with onsite learners. This article aims to describe the implementation experiences and participant feedback of a 1-year remotely facilitated pediatric emergency telesimulation program in three critical-access hospitals.
METHODS: Three hospitals were recruited to participate with a nurse manager serving as the on-site lead. The managers worked with a study investigator to set up the simulation technology during an in-person pilot testing visit with the off-site facilitators. A curriculum consisting of eight pediatric telesimulations and debriefings was conducted over a 12-month period. Participant feedback was collected via a paper survey after each simulation. Implementation metrics were collected after each session including technical and logistic issues.
RESULTS: Of 147 participant feedback surveys 90% reported that pediatric simulations should be conducted on a regular basis and overall feedback was positive. Forty-seven of 48 simulations were completed on the first attempt with few major technologic issues. The most common issue encountered related to the simulator not working correctly locally and involved the facilitator running the session without the heart and lung sounds. All debriefings occurred without any issues.
CONCLUSIONS: This replicable telesimulation program can be used in the small, rural hospital setting, overcoming time and distance barriers and lending pediatric emergency medicine expertise to the education of critical-access hospital providers.

References

  1. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Dec;25(12):1396-1408 [PMID: 30194902]
  2. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e191919 [PMID: 30977849]
  3. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Feb 17;1(2):132-136 [PMID: 30051023]
  4. AEM Educ Train. 2020 Mar 25;5(1):5-11 [PMID: 33521485]
  5. J Intensive Care Soc. 2020 Feb;21(1):57-63 [PMID: 32284719]
  6. Am J Perinatol. 2016 May;33(6):590-9 [PMID: 26731180]
  7. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep;144(3): [PMID: 31444254]
  8. Pediatrics. 2011 Aug;128(2):335-43 [PMID: 21746717]
  9. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Apr 06;1(2):137-139 [PMID: 30051024]
  10. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Jun;21(3):282-7 [PMID: 19381090]
  11. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018 Jan;34(1):17-20 [PMID: 29232353]
  12. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2014 Jun;30(6):397-402 [PMID: 24849272]
  13. Med Care. 2014 Jan;52(1):4-9 [PMID: 24316869]
  14. Fam Pract Res J. 1994 Mar;14(1):67-75 [PMID: 8048350]
  15. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021 Nov 1;37(11):543-549 [PMID: 30870337]
  16. Resuscitation. 2018 Dec;133:47-52 [PMID: 30261220]
  17. Pediatrics. 2018 Feb;141(2): [PMID: 29367204]
  18. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Feb;25(2):177-185 [PMID: 28977717]
  19. Mt Sinai J Med. 2009 Aug;76(4):330-43 [PMID: 19642147]
  20. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Aug;28(8):1078-89 [PMID: 23595919]
  21. JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):978-88 [PMID: 21900138]
  22. JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):45-52 [PMID: 21730240]
  23. Adv Simul (Lond). 2019 Dec 21;4:30 [PMID: 31890313]
  24. J Rural Health. 2019 Sep;35(4):480-489 [PMID: 30062684]
  25. J Pediatr. 2008 Dec;153(6):783-9 [PMID: 18617191]
  26. Clin Teach. 2014 Jul;11(4):270-3 [PMID: 24917095]
  27. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Feb;25(2):144-147 [PMID: 28846175]
  28. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Jun;169(6):527-34 [PMID: 25867088]

Grants

  1. R18 HS024220/AHRQ HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pediatricruralfeedbackemergencysimulationissuesEDsimplementationTelesimulationfacilitatorparticipanttelesimulationprogramcritical-accesshospitalsdebriefingsconductedcollectedImplementationsessionsimulationswithouthospitalBACKGROUND:58millionvisitsdepartmentoccuryearUnitedStatescarelessfivepatientsperdaywellpreparedpediatricsSimulationassociatedimprovementspreparednesssettingschallengingduelimitedaccessequipmentspecialistsinvolvesremoteinteractingonsitelearnersarticleaimsdescribeexperiences1-yearremotelyfacilitatedthreeMETHODS:Threerecruitedparticipatenursemanagerservingon-siteleadmanagersworkedstudyinvestigatorsettechnologyin-personpilottestingvisitoff-sitefacilitatorscurriculumconsistingeighttelesimulations12-monthperiodParticipantviapapersurveymetricsincludingtechnicallogisticRESULTS:147surveys90%reportedregularbasisoverallpositiveForty-seven48completedfirstattemptmajortechnologiccommonissueencounteredrelatedsimulatorworkingcorrectlylocallyinvolvedrunningheartlungsoundsoccurredCONCLUSIONS:replicablecanusedsmallsettingovercomingtimedistancebarrierslendingmedicineexpertiseeducationprovidersCollaborativePediatricInterventionRuralCriticalAccessHospitals

Similar Articles

Cited By