Trial reportPloS one2020
Actor feedback and rigorous monitoring: Essential quality assurance tools for testing behavioral interventions with simulation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02721810 (Engaging Surrogates and Physicians to Ensure Concordant Critical Care), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Engaging Surrogates and Physicians to Ensure Concordant Critical Care
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSimulation is a powerful tool for training and evaluating clinicians. However, few studies have examined the consistency of actor performances during simulation based medical education (SBME). The Simulated Communication with ICU Proxies trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02721810) used simulation to evaluate the effect of a behavioral intervention on physician communication. The purpose of this secondary analysis of data generated by the quality assurance team during the trial was to assess how quality assurance monitoring procedures impacted rates of actor errors during simulations.
methodsThe trial used rigorous quality assurance to train actors, evaluate performances, and ensure the intervention was delivered within a standardized environment. The quality assurance team evaluated video recordings and documented errors. Actors received both timely, formative feedback and participated in group feedback sessions.
resultsError rates varied significantly across three actors (H(2) = 8.22, p = 0.02). In adjusted analyses, there was a decrease in the incidence of actor error over time, and errors decreased sharply after the first group feedback session (Incidence Rate Ratio = 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.42).
conclusionsRigorous quality assurance procedures may help ensure consistent actor performances during SBME.
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.