Back to Journals » Advances in Medical Education and Practice » Volume 6

Simulation training for foundation doctors on the management of the acutely ill patient

Authors Cachia M, Pace-Bardon M, Balzan G, Tilney R, Micallef J, Balzan M

Received 17 September 2015

Accepted for publication 28 October 2015

Published 16 December 2015 Volume 2015:6 Pages 657—663

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S96566

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Maria Olenick

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Anwarul Azim Majumder


Monique Cachia,1 Michael Pace-Bardon,2 Gabriella Balzan,2 Russel Tilney,2 Josef Micallef,2 Martin Balzan2

1Department of Medicine, 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta

Background: A study evaluating subjective trainee responses to simulation training organized by the Malta Foundation Program in particular whether this changed their clinical practice.
Method: Feedback using a standardized questionnaire was obtained from 120 (M=55%) participants. A 0–10 Likert scale was used to evaluate responses.
Results: Participants scored the simulation sessions as “useful” at 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.4–8.0), rated “the overall experience” at 7.5 (95% CI 7.2–7.8), and thought it made a change in “daily practice” at 5.83 (95% CI 5.4–6.3). The score for the tutor “creating a satisfactory learning environment” and “quality of simulator equipment” was 7.8 (95% CI 7.6–8.1) and 7.7 (95% CI 7.4–8), respectively. Trainees rated “how close was the simulation to a real-life scenario” as 6.24 (95% CI 5.9–6.6). When asked whether the presence of colleagues hindered or helped, the majority were neutral 50 (41.7%), 36 (30%) said it hindered, while only 21 (28.3%) felt it helped. In contrast, 94 (78.33%) stated it was useful to observe colleagues while only 5 (4.2%) stated it was not. Likelihood for future participation was 7.4 (95% CI 7–7.8). Trainees recommended a median of 3 (interquartile range 2–5) simulations per year.
Conclusion: Trainees rated the sessions as useful and asked for more sessions possibly at an undergraduate level. Rating for equipment and tutors was positive; however, some felt that the effect on daily practice was limited. Most were comfortable observing others and uncomfortable being observed. The value of increasing sessions to 3–4 per year, timing them before clinical attachments and audiovisual prebriefing for candidates naïve to simulation needs to be evaluated in future studies.

Keywords: simulation, foundation, training, acute, medical, mannequin

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]