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

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; P = 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.