ArticlePloS one2019
Implications of long-term low-fidelity in situ simulation in acute care and association with a reduction in unexpected cardiac arrests: A retrospective research study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- ISP25: health crisis management training for public health residents in France, a pilot and feasibility study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- RESCUER mobile app to support pediatric resuscitation: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Training on Coping With Perinatal Loss on Undergraduate Midwifery Students' Competence in Bereavement Care.Nursing research and practice · 2025Article
- Effect of in situ simulation training for emergency caesarean section on maternal and infant outcomes.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the feasibility and impacts of in situ simulation in emergency medicine-a mixed-method study protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The Use of in situ Simulation in Healthcare Education: Current Perspectives.Advances in medical education and practice · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In situ simulation is a new tool for building teamwork during crisis. However, only a few studies have discussed the long-term effects of regular in situ simulations. To better understand these effects, this study retrospectively analyzed the effect of regular (twice a month over a four-year period) in situ simulations in the National Cheng Kung University Hospital acute care ward, which provides care for patients with acute illnesses and requires admission during an emergency room visit. The simulations were held in a real clinical environment using a low-fidelity mannequin and the trainees involved in the simulations were the medical staff of the acute care ward. In this study, we review the effects of such long-term simulations with respect to team performance based on the Ottawa global rating scale (GRS) and incidences of urgent intubation and unexpected cardiac arrest. Our results revealed that among the 84 simulations that were conducted during the study period, 42 could be categorized as "high performance" and the remaining 42 as "low performance" based on the team's Ottawa GRS. Further, the seniority of nurse leaders and exposure of nurses to repeated simulations did not have any effect on performance. However, although regular simulations did not have any effect on the number of urgent intubations, they caused a marked decrease in the number of unexpected cardiac arrests. The current study did not show that repeated, low-fidelity, regular in situ simulations improve team performance in simulations based on Ottawa GRS, but it was associated with a reduction in the unexpected cardiac arrest rate in the acute care ward. Our results support the use of in situ simulations in acute care wards as an educational tool for first-line caregivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.