ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
IN SITU: Evaluation of the feasibility and impacts of in situ simulation in emergency medicine, a mixed method study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn situ simulation (ISS) is a popular teaching method which uses simulated scenarios occurring in the actual clinical work environment of the learners. Our study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and identification of latent safety threats (LSTs) of two types of ISS in the Emergency Department (ED): announced and unannounced.
methodsWe conducted a mixed method study at a Level-1 trauma center ED, using announced and unannounced ISS sessions. Research Assistants conducted semi-structured individual interviews to measure acceptability, implementation, and practicality. We also assessed implementation and patient safety using quantitative parameters (number of cancelled ISS sessions, ED wait times, patients who left without being seen, latent safety threats). We performed thematic content analyses for the qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects modelling.
resultsIn total, 84 emergency professionals participated in 18 simulations; 5 were unannounced and 13 were announced. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: the positive impact of ISS on patient safety, the preference for announced ISS, and the stress induced by ISS. The comparison of safety parameters showed no differences between both ISS modalities except for an increased number of patients leaving without being seen after unannounced ISS.
conclusionOur study found that both announced and unannounced in situ simulations are safe and practical for emergency medicine. They do not affect patient safety, or the number of latent safety threats. However, unannounced simulations were less feasible during a pandemic.
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.