ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Assessment of a simulation-based implementation method to support the introduction of a new invasive device: a prospective cross-over study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThe introduction of new medical devices into care units, or their replacement by new devices, is not always accompanied by implementation strategies that enable healthcare professionals to use them safely. Simulation is a relevant tool for reproducing critical care clinical situations without danger for the patients and providing training support. The aim of the study was to assess a simulation-based implementation method to accompany and reduce the risks associated with the deployment of a new invasive medical device in critical care units.
designProspective mono-centric cross-over study.
settingIn our hospital, the type of Invasive Arterial Blood Pressure Sensors (IABPS) for blood pressure (BP) monitoring and arterial sampling has been completely replaced by a new one with numerous differences. No specific training had been planned.
participants66 intensive care unit (ICU) nurses from three ICUs with a total number of 39 beds were involved.
interventionsThe scenario and evaluation grid were designed by multi-disciplinary teams who received in-depth training on the new IABPS from the laboratory and the institution's equipment specialists. Nurses in group A (GA) (n=33) started by using the IABPS on a simulation scenario and then received explanations on differences. Nurses in group B (GB) (n=33) received explanations and then used the IABPS on the simulation scenario. Nurses in GA and GB all had individual feedback on their errors at the end. Next, they listed the most important information they would give to a colleague if they had a few minutes to train him or her. They also completed an anonymous self-questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the training and with the new IABPS. MAIN
resultsThe mean number of errors in the act of measuring BP and taking biological samples was statistically higher for GA, demonstrating the relevance of offering a training programme to support the deployment of a new device. The mean times to BP measurement and to collection were similar. Recommendations for asepsis of the sampling site were not followed. Recurrent errors were related to the ergonomics of the IABPS. Caregivers (n=55 questionnaires) appreciated the training and the new IABPS.
conclusionsSimulation can be useful for both providing a training model and identifying the situations that would require dedicated training support. The simulation tool provided training and context to nurses before they use the new IAPBS in clinical practice. Simulation training has also led to a better understanding of the most common errors. Because of new IABPS widespread use, it was all the more important to prevent usage errors.
Indexed as
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.