Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32754345›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2020

In-situ simulations for COVID-19: a safety II approach towards resilient performance.

Zavi Lakissian, Rami Sabouneh, Rida Zeineddine, Joe Fayad, Rim Banat, Rana Sharara-Chami

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zavi LakissianDar Al-Wafaa Simulation in Medicine (DAWSIM), American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rami SabounehDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, P.O. Box 11-0236 Riad El Solh, Beirut, 110 72020 Lebanon.
Rida ZeineddineDar Al-Wafaa Simulation in Medicine (DAWSIM), American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Joe FayadDepartment of Fine Arts, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rim BanatDar Al-Wafaa Simulation in Medicine (DAWSIM), American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rana Sharara-ChamiDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, P.O. Box 11-0236 Riad El Solh, Beirut, 110 72020 Lebanon.
American University of Beirut · LBAmerican University of Beirut Medical Center · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has taken the world by surprise; even the most sophisticated healthcare systems have been unable to cope with the volume of patients and lack of resources. Yet the gradual spread of the virus in Lebanon has allowed healthcare facilities critical time to prepare. Simulation is the most practical avenue not only for preparing the staff but also for troubleshooting system's latent safety threats (LSTs) and for understanding these challenges via Hollnagel's safety I-II approaches.

methodsThis is a quality improvement initiative: daily in situ simulations were conducted across various departments at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC), a tertiary medical care center in Beirut, Lebanon. These simulations took place in the hospital with native multidisciplinary teams of 3-5 members followed by debriefing with good judgment using the modified PEARLS (Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation) for systems integration. All participants completed the simulation effectiveness tool (SET-M) to assess the simulation. Debriefings were analyzed qualitatively for content based on the Safety Model and LST identification, and the SET-Ms were analyzed quantitatively.

resultsTwenty-two simulations have been conducted with 131 participants. SET-M results showed that the majority (78-87%) strongly agreed to the effectiveness of the intervention. We were able to glean several clinical and human factor safety I-II components and LSTs such as overall lack of preparedness and awareness of donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), delayed response time, lack of experience in rapid sequence intubation, inability to timely and effectively assign roles, and lack of situational awareness. On the other hand, teams quickly recognized the patient's clinical status and often communicated effectively.

conclusionThis intervention allowed us to detect previously unrecognized LSTs, prepare our personnel, and offer crucial practical hands-on experience for an unprecedented healthcare crisis.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hospital preparednessIn situ simulationLatent safety threatsMultidisciplinary teamsQuality improvementSafety ISafety II

Identifiers

PMID32754345
PMCPMC7388429
OpenAlexW3045914373

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.