Activity

INTRODUCTION Because improved competence in caring for patients is difficult to measure, self-efficacy (the strength of one’s belief in one’s ability to complete a task) is often used as a surrogate measurement of clinical ability. However, studies in adults and children have shown at best only weak correlations between self-efficacy and performance. This correlation has not been well studied in neonatal resuscitation limiting the utility of self-efficacy as a measurement of the effectiveness of interventions in this population. The objective of this study was to determine whether self-efficacy correlates with performance of simulated neonatal chest compressions and ventilation. METHODS Sixty-nine neonatal fellows, neonatal nurse practitioners, neonatologists, and nurses completed a 7-point Likert scale in which they reported their ability to perform ventilations and chest compressions. The participants then performed chest compressions and bag-valve-mask ventilation on a mannequin. The performance of participants was compared with the rating of their ability using Spearman rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS There was no correlation between participants’ self-assessment and performance of chest compressions (rs = 0.003) or bag-valve-mask ventilation (rs = 0.08). There was a correlation between experience (years of neonatal intensive care unit experience, number of mock codes, and number of real codes) and the ratings of self-efficacy as well as between the number of mock codes and ventilation performance. CONCLUSIONS In this study, self-reported efficacy had no correlation to clinical skills in neonatal resuscitation; participants both overestimated and underestimated their clinical proficiency. Prior participation in mock codes in the neonatal intensive care unit was the only factor that correlated with resuscitation performance.Although a focus on the learner rightly remains in any teaching environment, the psychological safety of everyone involved in the conduct of experiential learning and critical academic scholarship is important. Education literature suggests that faculty are just as prone to psychological harm as their learners. This commentary describes adverse experiences from a simulation-based education event that took place at an Australasian interprofessional and cross-domain simulation workshop. Event facilitators explored the notion of the “safe container” but, in the process, were themselves exposed to psychological injury. We summarize an ostensibly complex simulation activity with unintended sequelae, the ethical concerns surrounding the faculty care, and from lessons learned, present an extended conceptualization of the safe container including broader parameters around the preparation of all involved in the delivery of simulation-based activities. Our goals in sharing this case is to encourage the community to become more vigilant regarding the unintended consequences of our simulation activities and to encourage open reporting and discussion of such incidents for the betterment of the field.INTRODUCTION Virtual simulation (VS) is an adaptable medium for teaching critical disaster management skills such as efficient hospital evacuation. We aimed to compare VS and prerecorded narrated multimedia lecture-based training of pediatric nurses for evacuation of a sick newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit and pediatric emergency department (ED) using live evacuation simulations. METHODS Thirty neonatal intensive care unit and 30 ED nurses enrolled with 30 randomized to multimedia lecture and 30 randomized to VS, with equal block distribution of nurses from each unit. AUY-922 manufacturer Pretraining/posttraining surveys were administered, and live evacuation simulations were scored for time to evacuation, items collected, and communication. RESULTS Overall, disaster preparation and communication improved within the VS group as compared with the multimedia lecture group. Virtual simulation rated more immersive (P less then 0.001), better at safety threat identification (P less then 0.05), and better at evacuation preparation compared with multimedia lecture (P less then 0.01). Virtual simulation participants felt more prepared in disaster response (P less then 0.001) and patient evacuation (P less then 0.001). Both groups packed equal essential items, but VS participants packed more equipment (mean, 19 vs. 15, P less then 0.01) with no significant evacuation time difference between the VS group (145 ± 58 seconds) and multimedia lecture group (152 ± 59 seconds, P = not significant). Virtual simulation participants had better communication ratings with the charge nurse (P less then 0.05) and family (P less then 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Virtual simulation was well received by nurses compared with multimedia lecture and may be an effective adjunct for training nurses on infant patient evacuation during a disaster.Perioperative medicine is changing from a “protocol-based” approach to a progressively personalized care model. New molecular techniques and comprehensive perioperative medical records allow for detection of patient-specific phenotypes that may better explain, or even predict, a patient’s response to perioperative stress and anesthetic care. Basic science technology has significantly evolved in recent years with the advent of powerful approaches that have translational relevance. It is incumbent on us as a primarily clinical specialty to have an in-depth understanding of rapidly evolving underlying basic science techniques to incorporate such approaches into our own research, critically interpret the literature, and improve future anesthesia patient care. This review focuses on 3 important and most likely practice-changing basic science techniques next-generation sequencing (NGS), clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) modulations, and inducible pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Each technique will be described, potential advantages and limitations discussed, open questions and challenges addressed, and future developments outlined. We hope to provide insight for practicing physicians when confronted with basic science articles and encourage investigators to apply “state-of-the-art” technology to their future experiments.