Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34327078›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Defining Priority Areas for Critical Care Simulation: A Modified Delphi Consensus Project.

Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, Adrian Zurca, Tensing Maa, Utpal S Bhalala, Deepa Malaiyandi, Pooja Nawathe, Aarti Sarwal, Muhammad Waseem, Michael Kenes, Megan Vennero and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. High-fidelity simulation programs in ICU-related ethical non-technical skills training: A narrative review.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Ilana Harwayne-GidanskyPediatrics, Stony Brook Children's Hospital, Stony Brook, USA.
Adrian ZurcaPediatric Critical Care Medicine, Penn State Health Children's Hospital, Hershey, USA.
Tensing MaaPediatric Critical Care Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, USA.
Utpal S BhalalaPediatric Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of San Antonio, San Antonio, USA.
Deepa MalaiyandiNeuro-critical Care, University of Toledo, Toledo, USA.
Pooja NawathePediatric Critical Care Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Aarti SarwalNeurology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, USA.
Muhammad WaseemPediatric Emergency Medicine, Lincoln Medical & Mental Health Center, New York, USA.
Michael KenesPharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Megan VenneroEmergency Medicine, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, USA.
Lillian EmletEmergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Simulation is used in critical care for skill development, formative assessment, and interprofessional team performance. Healthcare educators need to balance the relatively high cost to deliver simulation education with the potential impact on healthcare quality. It is unclear how to prioritize simulation in critical care education, especially considering interprofessional needs across adult and pediatric populations. The objective of this study was to prioritize topics for critical care educators developing simulation-based educational interventions. Methodology A modified Delphi process was used to identify and prioritize critical care topics taught using simulation. We disseminated a multi-institutional survey to understand critical care simulation topics using a three-round modified Delphi technique. An expert panel was recruited based on their expertise with simulation-based education through the Society for Simulation in Healthcare and the Society of Critical Care Medicine lists. Critical care topics originated using content derived from multiple critical care board examination contents. Additional content for a critical care simulation-based curriculum was generated. Results Consensus and prioritization were achieved in three rounds, with 52 simulation experts participating. The first Delphi round surveyed priority topics in critical care content and generated additional topics for inclusion in round two. The second Delphi round added the content with the highest-ranked items from round one to generate a set of simulation-based topic priorities. The third Delphi round asked participants to determine the importance of each priority item taught via simulation compared to other modalities for clinical education. This round yielded 106 topics over four domains categorized into (1) Diagnosis and Management of Clinical Problems, (2) Procedural Skills, (3) Teamwork and Communication Skills, and (4) General Knowledge and Knowledge of Technical Adjuncts. Conclusions The modified Delphi survey revealed a prioritized, consensus-based list of topics and domains for critical care educators to focus on when creating a simulation-based critical care curriculum. Future work will focus on developing specific simulation-based critical care curricula.

Indexed as

critical careinterprofessional education and collaborationmedical educationpediatric emergencies and critical carepulmonary critical caresimulationtraining

Identifiers

PMID34327078
PMCPMC8301295

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.