Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

Objectives: Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine Vol. 28; no. 8; pp. 1078 - 1090
Autores principales: Zendejas, Benjamin, Brydges, Ryan, Wang, Amy T, Cook, David A
Formato: research systematic review Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Aug2013
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104081657&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 104081657
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        08848734
        4BF
      jtl: JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
      issn: 08848734
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2013
      vid: 28
      iid: 8
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        104081657
        NLM23595919
        2012189096
        10.1007/s11606-012-2264-5
        NLM23595919
        PMC3710391
        104081657
      ppf: 1078
      ppct: 12
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.
      aug:
        au:
          Zendejas, Benjamin
          Brydges, Ryan
          Wang, Amy T
          Cook, David A
        affil: Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA, zendejas.benjamin@mayo.edu.
      sug:
        subj:
          Clinical Competence Standards
          Clinical Trials Standards
          Computer Simulation Standards
          Education, Medical Standards
          Patient Care Standards
          CINAHL Database
          Education, Medical
          Embase
          Human
          Medline
          Patient Care Methods
          Psycinfo
          Systematic Review
          Treatment Outcomes
      ab: Objectives: Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Study Eligibility: Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Appraisal and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.Results: From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Limitations: Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2) > 50 % in most analyses).Conclusions: Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        systematic review
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N