Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30505467›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2018

Detecting latent safety threats in an interprofessional training that combines in situ simulation with task training in an emergency department.

Thomaz Bittencourt Couto, Joyce Kelly Silva Barreto, Francielly Cesco Marcon, Ana Carolina Cintra Nunes Mafra, Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Value-based simulation in healthcare: a new model for metrics reporting.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomaz Bittencourt Couto1Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av. Albert Einstein, 627/701, Bloco A-1 subsolo, Sao Paulo, SP CEP 05651-901 Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4744-981X
Joyce Kelly Silva BarretoCentro de Simulação Realística Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Francielly Cesco MarconCentro de Simulação Realística Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Cintra Nunes Mafra3Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi1Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av. Albert Einstein, 627/701, Bloco A-1 subsolo, Sao Paulo, SP CEP 05651-901 Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring in situ simulation, interprofessional care teams practice in an area where clinical care occurs. This study aimed to detect latent safety threats (LST) in a training program, which combined in situ simulation scenarios with just-in-time and just-in-place self-directed task training in an emergency department. We hypothesized this simulation-based training in actual care areas allows the detection of at least one LST per simulation scenario.

methodsThis prospective observational study (April 2015-March 2016) involved 135 physicians, nurses, and nurse technicians. Training themes selected were arrhythmia, respiratory insufficiency, shock, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Simulation weeks occurred every 3 months, with three 10-min scheduled in situ simulation scenarios alternating for each theme daily. The scenarios were followed by co-debriefing by two facilitators (a physician and a nurse). LST were identified by facilitators using a debriefing checklist. Additionally, a room was set up with task-trainers related to each theme.

resultsThe number participants in scenarios was 114 (84% of the population) and in task-training, 101. The number of scenario cancelations was nine, making the final total number to 49 of 58 proposed. Fifty-six LST were observed, with an average of 1.1 per scenario. LST were divided into four categories: equipment (

conclusionsThe training allowed a high rate of detecting LST regardless of theme. Equipment-related LST were more frequently found.

Indexed as

Emergency medicineIn situ simulationInterprofessionalPediatric emergency medicineSimulationTask training

Identifiers

PMID30505467
PMCPMC6260660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.