Comparison of In-Person and Telesimulation for Critical Care Training during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Erica Lin, Alan X You, Gabriel Wardi
Author Information
  1. Erica Lin: Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and. ORCID
  2. Alan X You: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. ORCID
  3. Gabriel Wardi: Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted medical education for trainees of all levels. Although telesimulation was initially used to train in resource-limited environments, it may be a reasonable alternative for replicating authentic patient experiences for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear whether a more passive approach through telesimulation training is as effective as traditional in-person simulation training.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of in-person versus remote simulation training on learners' comfort with managing Critical Care scenarios.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study assessing the impact of an in-person versus remote simulation course on volunteer fourth-year medical students from February to April 2021 at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Precourse and postcourse surveys were performed anonymously using an online secure resource.
RESULTS: In the in-person learners, there was statistically significant improvement in learner comfort across all technical, behavioral, and cognitive domains. In remote learners, there was a trend toward improvement in self-reported comfort across technical and cognitive domains in the telesimulation course. However, the only statistically significant improvement in postcourse surveys of telesimulation learners, compared with baseline, was in running codes. Regardless of the training modality, the students had a positive experience with the Critical Care simulation course, ranking it, on average, 9.6 out of 10 (9.9 in in-person simulation vs. 9.3 in telesimulation;  = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that implementation of a telesimulation-based simulation course focusing on Critical Care cases is feasible and well received by trainees. Although a telesimulation-based simulation course may not be as effective for remote learners as active in-person participants, our study provided evidence that there was still a trend toward improving provider readiness across technical and cognitive domains when approaching Critical Care cases.

Keywords

References

  1. Simul Healthc. 2019 Jun;14(3):140-145 [PMID: 30601465]
  2. JAMA Surg. 2018 Oct 1;153(10):968-969 [PMID: 29998285]
  3. Adv Simul (Lond). 2020 Aug 12;5:18 [PMID: 32817805]
  4. Clin Teach. 2021 Apr;18(2):121-125 [PMID: 33043589]
  5. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Feb 17;1(2):132-136 [PMID: 30051023]
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34 [PMID: 15471760]
  7. Adv Simul (Lond). 2016 Jul 25;1:25 [PMID: 29449994]
  8. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021 Feb 1;37(2):119-122 [PMID: 33181792]
  9. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Jul 31;2(3):229-233 [PMID: 30225455]
  10. J Grad Med Educ. 2012 Dec;4(4):479-85 [PMID: 24294425]
  11. AEM Educ Train. 2018 Dec 21;3(1):20-32 [PMID: 30680344]
  12. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2012 Jun 29;9:Article 14 [PMID: 22850068]
  13. J Surg Res. 2020 Aug;252:57-62 [PMID: 32234569]
  14. Clin Chest Med. 2015 Sep;36(3):469-79 [PMID: 26304284]
  15. JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2131-2132 [PMID: 32232420]
  16. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26(2):160-3 [PMID: 24702552]
  17. Mil Med. 2017 Mar;182(3):e1762-e1766 [PMID: 28290956]
  18. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):417-22 [PMID: 19565299]
  19. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Aug 11;1(4):287-292 [PMID: 30051046]
  20. Teach Learn Med. 2019 Apr-May;31(2):207-221 [PMID: 30428732]
  21. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 06;21(8):e14587 [PMID: 31389340]
  22. MedEdPORTAL. 2019 Feb 27;15:10808 [PMID: 30931387]
  23. Cureus. 2021 Jan 4;13(1):e12479 [PMID: 33552792]
  24. Cureus. 2020 Mar 6;12(3):e7190 [PMID: 32377461]
  25. Adv Simul (Lond). 2020 Sep 29;5:26 [PMID: 32999738]
  26. Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1892017 [PMID: 33602053]
  27. Cureus. 2020 Jun 22;12(6):e8766 [PMID: 32714703]
  28. Simul Healthc. 2015 Apr;10(2):106-15 [PMID: 25710312]
  29. AEM Educ Train. 2021 Mar 01;:e10593 [PMID: 33786409]
  30. J Interprof Care. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5):706-710 [PMID: 32917099]
  31. Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;18(4):420-7 [PMID: 21496146]
  32. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Apr 06;1(2):137-139 [PMID: 30051024]
  33. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014 Jan;123(1):11-8 [PMID: 24574418]
  34. MedEdPORTAL. 2019 Aug 23;15:10832 [PMID: 31773060]
  35. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Feb;25(2):144-147 [PMID: 28846175]
  36. Adv Simul (Lond). 2017 Mar 20;2:7 [PMID: 29450008]
  37. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2015;126:260-70 [PMID: 26330687]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0simulationtelesimulationin-personremotecourseCOVID-19trainingcriticalcarelearners9medicalstudentscomfortimprovementacrosstechnicalcognitivedomainspandemictraineesAlthoughmayeffectiveversusstudypostcoursesurveysstatisticallysignificanttrendtowardtelesimulation-basedcasesBACKGROUND:coronavirusdiseasedisruptededucationlevelsinitiallyusedtrainresource-limitedenvironmentsreasonablealternativereplicatingauthenticpatientexperiencesunclearwhetherpassiveapproachtraditionalOBJECTIVE:aimevaluateeffectivenesslearners'managingscenariosMETHODS:prospectiveobservationalcohortassessingimpactvolunteerfourth-yearFebruaryApril2021UniversityCaliforniaSanDiegoSchoolMedicinePrecourseperformedanonymouslyusingonlinesecureresourceRESULTS:learnerbehavioralself-reportedHowevercomparedbaselinerunningcodesRegardlessmodalitypositiveexperiencerankingaverage610vs3 = 006CONCLUSION:demonstratedimplementationfocusingfeasiblewellreceivedactiveparticipantsprovidedevidencestillimprovingproviderreadinessapproachingComparisonIn-PersonTelesimulationCriticalCareTrainingPandemic

Similar Articles

Cited By (9)