ArticleAEM education and training2022
Procedural task trainer gaps in emergency medicine: A rift in the simulation universe.
Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The MIDAS touch: Frameworks for procedural model innovation and validation.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Procedural task trainer gaps in emergency medicine: A rift in the simulation universe.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: We identified and quantified the gap between emergency medicine (EM) procedures currently taught using simulation versus those that educators would teach if they had better procedural task trainers. Additionally, we endeavored to describe which procedures were taught using homemade models and the barriers to creation and use of additional homemade models. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, we developed a survey and distributed it to a convenience sample of EM simulationists via the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Simulation Academy listserv. Survey items asked participants to identify procedures they thought should be taught using simulation ("most important"), do teach using simulation ("most frequent"), would teach if a simulator or model were available ("most needed"), and do teach using simulation with "homemade" models ("most frequent homemade"). Results: Thirty-seven surveys were completed. The majority of respondents worked at academic medical centers and were involved in simulation-based education for at least 6 years. Three procedures ranked highly in overall teaching importance and currently taught categories. We identified four procedures that ranked highly as both important techniques to teach and would teach via simulation. Two procedures were selected as the most important procedures that the participants do teach via simulation but would like to teach in an improved way. We found 14 procedures that simulationists would teach if an adequate model was available, four of which are of high importance. Conclusions: This study captured data to illuminate the procedural model gap and inform future interventions that may address it and meet the overarching objective to create better and more readily available procedure models for EM simulation educators in the future. It offers an informed way of prioritizing procedures for which additional homemade models should be created and disseminated as well as barriers to be aware of and to work to overcome. Our work has implications for learners, educators, administrators, and industry.
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.