Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34250500›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2021

Prolonged, High-Fidelity Simulation for Study of Patient Care in Resource-Limited Medical Contexts and for Technology Comparative Effectiveness Testing.

Jeremy C Pamplin, Sena R Veazey, Joanne De Howitt, Katy Cohen, Stacie Barczak, Mark Espinoza, Dave Luellen, Kevin Ross, Maria Serio-Melvin, Mary McCarthy and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy C PamplinTelemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fredrick, MD.
Sena R VeazeyU.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, San Antonio, TX.
Joanne De HowittDepartment of Virtual Health, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA.
Katy CohenTelemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fredrick, MD.
Stacie BarczakDepartment of Virtual Health, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA.
Mark EspinozaU.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, San Antonio, TX.
Dave LuellenU.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, San Antonio, TX.
Kevin RossDocBox, Waltham, MA.
Maria Serio-MelvinU.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, San Antonio, TX.
Mary McCarthyCenter for Nursing Science and Clinical Inquiry, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA.
Christopher J ColomboDepartment of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD.
The Geneva Foundation · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · USFederal Reserve · USMadigan Army Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most high-fidelity medical simulation is of limited duration, used for education and training, and rarely intended to study medical technology. U.S. caregivers working in prehospital, resource-limited settings may need to manage patients for extended periods (hours to days). This "prolonged casualty care" occurs during military, wilderness, humanitarian, disaster, and space medicine. We sought to develop a standardized simulation model that accurately reflects prolonged casualty care in order to study caregiver decision-making and performance, training requirements, and technology use in prolonged casualty care.

designModel development.

settingHigh-fidelity simulation laboratory. SUBJECTS: None.

interventionsWe interviewed subject matter experts to identify relevant prolonged casualty care medical challenges and selected two casualty types to further develop our model: a large thermal burn model and a severe hypoxia model. We met with a multidisciplinary group of experts in prolonged casualty care, nursing, and critical care to describe how these problems could evolve over time and how to contextualize the problems with a background story and clinical environment with expected resource availability. Following initial scenario drafting, we tested the models with expert clinicians. After multiple tests, we selected the hypoxia model for refinement and testing with inexperienced providers. We tested and refined this model until two research teams could proctor the scenario consistently despite subject performance variability. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe developed a 6-8-hour simulation model that represented a 14-hour scenario. This model of pneumonia evolved from presentation to severe hypoxia necessitating advanced interventions including airway, breathing, and shock management. The model included: context description, caregiver orientation scripts, hourly progressive physiology tracks corresponding to caregiver interventions, intervention/procedure-specific physiology tracks, intervention checklists, equipment lists, prestudy checklists, photographs of setups, procedure, telementor, and role player scripts, business rules, and data collection methods.

conclusionsThis is the first standardized, high-fidelity simulation model of prolonged casualty care described in the literature. It may be used to assess caregiver performance and patient outcomes resulting from that performance during a complex, 14-hour prolonged casualty care scenario. Because it is standardized, the model may be used to compare differences in the impact of new technologies upon caregiver performance and simulated patient outcomes..

Indexed as

disaster medicinehigh-fidelity simulation trainingmilitary medicinetechnology assessmenttelemedicinewilderness medicine

Identifiers

PMID34250500
PMCPMC8263321
OpenAlexW3182383585

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.