Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39625762›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024

Telesimulation Use in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs: National Survey of Residency Simulation Leaders.

Max Berger, Jack Buckanavage, Jaime Jordan, Steven Lai, Linda Regan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Max BergerUniversity of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Jack BuckanavageMount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, New York, New York.
Jaime JordanUniversity of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Steven LaiUniversity of California Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Linda ReganJohns Hopkins University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated the need for virtual learning including telesimulation. Many emergency medicine (EM) programs halted in-person simulation and trialed telesimulation, but specifics on its utilization and plans for future use are unknown. Telesimulation has been defined as "a process by which telecommunication and simulation resources are utilized to provide education, training, and/or assessment to learners at an off-site location." Our objective in this study was to describe the patterns of telesimulation usage in EM residency programs during COVID-19-induced learning restrictions as well as its anticipated future utility. Methods: We identified EM simulation leaders via the EMRA Match website, institutional websites, or personal contact with residency coordinators and directors, and invited them to participate by email. Participants completed a confidential, web-based survey consisting of multiple-choice items and one free-response question, developed by our study team with consideration of survey research best practices and Messick's validity framework. We collected data between January-February 2022. We calculated descriptive statistics for multiple-choice items and examined the free-response answers for common themes. Results: We obtained contact information for simulation leaders at 139 EM residency programs. Survey response rate was 65% (91/139). During in-person restrictions, 62% (56/91) of programs used telesimulation. Assuming all restrictions lifted, 38% (34/90) of respondents planned to continue to use telesimulation, compared to 9% (8/91) using telesimulation before COVID-19. Most respondents planned to use telesimulation for medical knowledge (26/34, 76%) and communication/teamwork-focused cases (23/34, 68%). In response to the free-response question regarding experience with and plans for use, we identified three major themes: 1) telesimulation is a valuable alternative to in-person learning; 2) telesimulation is an option for learners unable to participate in person; and 3) telesimulation is challenging for procedural education. Conclusion: Despite the relatively limited use of telesimulation in EM residencies prior to COVID-19, an increased number of programs have plans to continue incorporating telesimulation into their curricula. This plan for continued use opens opportunities for further innovation and scholarship within simulation education.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emergency MedicineInternship and ResidencySimulation TrainingEducation, DistanceHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39625762
PMCPMC11610727

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.