Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31348631›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2019

Crash testing the dummy: a review of in situ trauma simulation at a Canadian tertiary centre

Samuel Minor, Robert Green, Samuel Jessula

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Need for Trauma Management Training and Evaluation on a Prehospital Setting.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samuel MinorFrom the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Jessula); the Department of Critical Care, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); Trauma Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); the Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green); and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green).
Robert GreenFrom the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Jessula); the Department of Critical Care, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); Trauma Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); the Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green); and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green).
Samuel JessulaFrom the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Jessula); the Department of Critical Care, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); Trauma Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS (Minor, Green); the Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green); and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS (Green).
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In situ trauma simulations allow for the trauma team and emergency department to practise team dynamics, resuscitation and logistics in a safe environment. The goal of this investigation was to show the feasibility of an in situ trauma simulation program at a Canadian level 1 trauma centre. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of in situ simulations (maximum 20 min, followed by a 10-min debriefing session) at a level 1 trauma centre from 2015 to 2017. Errors were categorized according to the National Patient Safety Agency risk assessment matrix by 3 independent raters and assigned consequence scores (assessing potential harm) and likelihood scores (assessing the likelihood of potential harm). A risk score was calculated as the product of the mean consequence and likelihood scores. Errors per simulation and the number of simulations required for error resolution were recorded. Results: We reviewed 8 in situ simulations and identified 54 errors, of which 7 were related to medications, 20 to equipment, 21 to environment/staffing and 6 to training. The mean consequence score was 2.85/5 (standard deviation [SD] 0.75, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 28%), indicating minor to moderate harm. The mean likelihood score was 2.82/5 (SD 0.55, ICC 41%), indicating unlikely to possible. The mean risk score was 8.42/25 (SD 3.19, ICC 43%). One error (2%) was low risk, 23 (43%) were moderate risk, 26 (48%) were high risk, and 4 (7%) were extreme risk. Conclusion: In situ trauma simulations are feasible in a Canadian centre and provide a safe environment to identify and rectify errors.

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingHumansInservice TrainingMedical ErrorsNova ScotiaRetrospective StudiesTrauma CentersTraumatology

Identifiers

PMID31348631
PMCPMC6660277
OpenAlexW2966475204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.