ArticleAEM education and training2023
Blueprint for community emergency department pediatric simulation.
Article in AEM education and training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- General emergency physician perceptions of caring for children: A qualitative interview study.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Blueprint for community emergency department pediatric simulation.AEM education and training · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Gaps in quality of pediatric emergency care have been noted in community emergency departments (CEDs), where >85% of children receive care. In situ simulation provides opportunities for hands-on experiences and can help close these gaps. We aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate an innovative, replicable, and scalable pediatric in situ simulation-based CED curriculum, under the leadership of a local colleague, through collaborative approach with a regional academic medical center (AMC). Methods: Kern's model was used as follows: Results: Based on needs assessment, the selected cases included newborn resuscitation, seizure, asthma, and tetrahydrocannabinol ingestion causing altered mental sensorium in a child. Twenty-four 3-h simulation sessions were conducted over 1 year. A total of 168 participants completed the sessions, while 75 participants (54.7% nurses, 22.7% physicians, and others) completed feedback surveys. Seventy-six percent of participants reported completing presimulation education material. Participants reported improved skills at appropriately evaluating a critically ill newborn and critically ill infant/toddler and improved teamwork during the care of a pediatric patient. The majority agreed that simulation was effective in teaching pediatric resuscitation. The NPS was 84% (excellent). Conclusions: A locally facilitated CED in situ simulation curriculum was successfully developed and implemented under local leadership, with remote collaboration by AMC. The curriculum was well received and effective.
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.