{"title":"Reinstating a national simulation programme in anaesthesiology during the coronavirus pandemic.","authors":"Sinead Campbell, Sarah Corbett, Crina L Burlacu","doi":"10.1136/bmjstel-2021-000894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the introduction of strict public health measures due to the coronavirus pandemic, we have had to change how we deliver simulation training. In order to reinstate the College of Anaesthesiologists Simulation Training (CAST) programme safely, we have had to make significant logistical changes. We discuss the process of reopening a national simulation anaesthesiology programme during a pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We approached how to reinstate the programme with three distinct but intertwined projects, as in the following: (1) a survey of effects of the pandemic on training opportunities for anaesthesiology trainees, (2) proposals for methods of reinstating simulation were developed under the headings <i>avoidance, compromise, accommodation</i> and <i>collaboration</i>. A small online video-assisted simulation pilot was carried out to test the <i>compromise</i> method, (3) having opted for combined <i>accommodation</i> (onsite with smaller participant numbers and safety measures) and <i>collaboration</i> (with other regional centres), a postreinstatement evaluation during a 4-month period was carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(1) Eighty-five per cent of 64 trainees surveyed felt that they had missed out not only just on simulation-based education (43%) but also on other training opportunities, (2) when five trainees were asked to state on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree and strongly agree) whether online video-assisted simulation was similar to face-to-face simulation in four categories (realism, immersion, sense of crisis and stress), only 9 (45%) of the 20 answers agreed they were similar, (3) When onsite simulation was reinstated, the majority of trainees felt that training was similar to prepandemic and were happy to continue with this format.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In order to reinstate simulation, we have identified that <i>accommodation</i> and <i>collaboration</i> best suited the CAST while <i>compromise</i> failed to rank high among trainees' preferences. Onsite courses will continue to be delivered safely while meeting the high standards our trainees have come to expect.</p>","PeriodicalId":44757,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":"7 6","pages":"575-580"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8245283/pdf/bmjstel-2021-000894.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2021-000894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: With the introduction of strict public health measures due to the coronavirus pandemic, we have had to change how we deliver simulation training. In order to reinstate the College of Anaesthesiologists Simulation Training (CAST) programme safely, we have had to make significant logistical changes. We discuss the process of reopening a national simulation anaesthesiology programme during a pandemic.
Methods: We approached how to reinstate the programme with three distinct but intertwined projects, as in the following: (1) a survey of effects of the pandemic on training opportunities for anaesthesiology trainees, (2) proposals for methods of reinstating simulation were developed under the headings avoidance, compromise, accommodation and collaboration. A small online video-assisted simulation pilot was carried out to test the compromise method, (3) having opted for combined accommodation (onsite with smaller participant numbers and safety measures) and collaboration (with other regional centres), a postreinstatement evaluation during a 4-month period was carried out.
Results: (1) Eighty-five per cent of 64 trainees surveyed felt that they had missed out not only just on simulation-based education (43%) but also on other training opportunities, (2) when five trainees were asked to state on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree and strongly agree) whether online video-assisted simulation was similar to face-to-face simulation in four categories (realism, immersion, sense of crisis and stress), only 9 (45%) of the 20 answers agreed they were similar, (3) When onsite simulation was reinstated, the majority of trainees felt that training was similar to prepandemic and were happy to continue with this format.
Conclusion: In order to reinstate simulation, we have identified that accommodation and collaboration best suited the CAST while compromise failed to rank high among trainees' preferences. Onsite courses will continue to be delivered safely while meeting the high standards our trainees have come to expect.