Simulation-based team training in time-critical clinical presentations in emergency medicine and critical care: a review of the literature

22Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The use of simulation-based team training has increased over the past decades. Simulation-based team training within emergency medicine and critical care contexts is best known for its use by trauma teams and teams involved in cardiac arrest. In the domain of emergency medicine, simulation-based team training is also used for other typical time-critical clinical presentations. We aimed to review the existing literature and current state of evidence pertaining to non-technical skills obtained via simulation-based team training in emergency medicine and critical care contexts, excluding trauma and cardiac arrest contexts. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Before the initiation of the study, the protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. We conducted a systematic literature search of 10 years of publications, up to December 17, 2019, in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two authors independently reviewed all the studies and extracted data. Results: Of the 456 studies screened, 29 trials were subjected to full-text review, and 13 studies were included in the final review. None of the studies was randomized controlled trials, and no studies compared simulation training to different modalities of training. Studies were heterogeneous; they applied simulation-training concepts of different durations and intensities and used different outcome measures for non-technical skills. Two studies reached Kirkpatrick level 3. Out of the remaining 11 studies, nine reached Kirkpatrick level 2, and two reached Kirkpatrick level 1. Conclusions: The literature on simulation-based team training in emergency medicine is heterogeneous and sparse, but somewhat supports the hypothesis that simulation-based team training is beneficial to teams’ knowledge and attitudes toward non-technical skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). Randomized trials are called for to clarify the effect of simulation compared to other modalities of team training. Future research should focus on the transfer of skills and investigate improvements in patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4).

References Powered by Scopus

ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

11634Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review

2465Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

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

1451Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The effectiveness of improving healthcare teams’ human factor skills using simulation-based training: a systematic review

31Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Taking the Pulse of the Current State of Simulation

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

TEAMs go VR—validating the TEAM in a virtual reality (VR) medical team training

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Weile, J., Nebsbjerg, M. A., Ovesen, S. H., Paltved, C., & Ingeman, M. L. (2021). Simulation-based team training in time-critical clinical presentations in emergency medicine and critical care: a review of the literature. Advances in Simulation, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00154-4

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 21

64%

Researcher 6

18%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 17

43%

Medicine and Dentistry 16

40%

Psychology 4

10%

Social Sciences 3

8%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free