IntroductionWith increased incorporation of simulation-based methodologies into quality improvement activities, standards for reporting on simulation-specific elements in healthcare improvement research are needed.MethodsWe followed established consensus process methodology to iteratively create simulation-based extensions for SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines. Initial steps involved forming a steering committee, defining the scope, and conducting premeeting activities with an expert panel of simulation and quality improvement researchers. Recommendations from the expert panel were brought to a consensus meeting where existing guidelines were reviewed and recommendations made. Steering Committee members reviewed all recommendations, reconciled differences, and made final recommendations, which were piloted by experienced simulation and quality improvement researchers.ResultsFifteen Steering Committee members, 59 experts in simulation and quality improvement research, and 86 consensus meeting attendees reviewed SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines and ultimately recommended simulation-based reporting guidelines for 22 of the 41 (54%) SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Those items for which simulation-based extensions were identified were: Notes to Authors, 1 (Title), 2a (Abstract), 2b (Abstract), 4 (Introduction: Available knowledge), 5 (Introduction: Rationale), 7 and 8a & b (Methods: Context and intervention), 9a (Methods - Study of the intervention), 9b (Methods - Study of the intervention), 10a (Methods - Measures), 10b (Methods-Measures), 10c (Methods-Measures), 11b (Methods- Analysis), 12 (Methods - Ethical considerations), 13a (Results), 13e (Results), 14b (Discussion - Summary), 15a-e (Discussion - Interpretation), 16a (Discussion - Limitations), 16b (Discussion - Limitations), 17c (Discussion - Conclusions), and 17d (Discussion - Conclusions).ConclusionsWe created simulation-based extensions to SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines to improve the quality and standardization of reporting on simulation-specific elements of healthcare improvement research.

To rapidly advance patient safety research, in 2014 the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality launched a radically different research initiative by supporting patient safety learning laboratories (PSLLs) using systems perspectives and engineering approaches to advance patient safety. The 5-phase systems engineering methodology uses diverse methods and devotes particular attention to health care safety problem analysis, followed by design, development, implementation, and evaluation. PSLL projects have demonstrated decreases in mortality as well as increases in diagnostic accuracy, reduction in adverse drug events, decreased medication errors, improved early detection of adverse events, and reduction in the number of prenatal adverse events. PSLLs have developed guidance and resources to prevent as well as mitigate patient harm and improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care delivery. By fusing approaches ranging from human-centered design to AI-driven analytics applied to health services research, PSLLs have produced influential, evidence-based, scalable interventions that strengthen health care delivery processes and improve outcomes for society, health care organizations, providers, and-most importantly-patients and their families.

INTRODUCTION:With increased incorporation of simulation-based methodologies into quality improvement activities, standards for reporting on simulation-specific elements in healthcare improvement research are needed. METHODS:We followed established consensus process methodology to iteratively create simulation-based extensions for SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines. Initial steps involved forming a steering committee, defining the scope, and conducting premeeting activities with an expert panel of simulation and quality improvement researchers. Recommendations from the expert panel were brought to a consensus meeting where existing guidelines were reviewed and recommendations made. Steering Committee members reviewed all recommendations, reconciled differences, and made final recommendations, which were piloted by experienced simulation and quality improvement researchers. RESULTS:Fifteen Steering Committee members, 59 experts in simulation and quality improvement research, and 86 consensus meeting attendees reviewed SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines and ultimately recommended simulation-based reporting guidelines for 22 of the 41 (54%) SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Those items for which simulation-based extensions were identified were: Notes to Authors, 1 (Title), 2a (Abstract), 2b (Abstract), 4 (Introduction: Available knowledge), 5 (Introduction: Rationale), 7 and 8a & b (Methods: Context and intervention), 9a (Methods - Study of the intervention), 9b (Methods - Study of the intervention), 10a (Methods - Measures), 10b (Methods-Measures), 10c (Methods-Measures), 11b (Methods- Analysis), 12 (Methods - Ethical considerations), 13a (Results), 13e (Results), 14b (Discussion - Summary), 15a-e (Discussion - Interpretation), 16a (Discussion - Limitations), 16b (Discussion - Limitations), 17c (Discussion - Conclusions), and 17d (Discussion - Conclusions). CONCLUSIONS:We created simulation-based extensions to SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines to improve the quality and standardization of reporting on simulation-specific elements of healthcare improvement research.

In this panel, we present perspectives on how to incorporate fundamental concepts in resilience engineering into health care human-in-the-loop simulations. Our panelists have successfully implemented concepts, but also continue to experience challenges with convincing colleagues of the importance and value of doing so for simulations that have other training, technology evaluation, or quality improvement objectives.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid implementation and refinement of distance simulation methodologies in which participants and/or facilitators are not physically colocated. A review of the distance simulation literature showed that heterogeneity in many areas (including nomenclature, methodology, and outcomes) limited the ability to identify best practice. In April 2020, the Healthcare Distance Simulation Collaboration was formed with the goal of addressing these issues. The aim of this study was to identify future research priorities in the field of distance simulation using data derived from this summit.METHODS:This study analyzed textual data gathered during the consensus process conducted at the inaugural Healthcare Distance Simulation Summit to explore participant perceptions of the most pressing research questions regarding distance simulation. Participants discussed education and patient safety standards, simulation facilitators and barriers, and research priorities. Data were qualitatively analyzed using an explicitly constructivist thematic analysis approach, resulting in the creation of a theoretical framework.RESULTS:Our sample included 302 participants who represented 29 countries. We identified 42 codes clustered within 4 themes concerning key areas in which further research into distance simulation is needed: (1) safety and acceptability, (2) educational/foundational considerations, (3) impact, and (4) areas of ongoing exploration. Within each theme, pertinent research questions were identified and categorized.CONCLUSIONS:Distance simulation presents several challenges and opportunities. Research around best practices, including educational foundation and psychological safety, are especially important as is the need to determine outcomes and long-term effects of this emerging field.

Simulation training has taken a prominent role in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OTO-HNS) as a means to ensure patient safety and quality improvement (PS/QI). While it is often equated to resident training, this tool has value in lifelong learning and extends beyond the individual otolaryngologists to include simulation-based learning for teams and health systems processes. Part III of this PS/QI primer provides an overview of simulation in medicine and specific applications within the field of OTO-HNS. The impact of simulation on PS/QI will be presented in an evidence-based fashion to include the use of run and statistical process control charts to assess the impact of simulation-guided initiatives. Last, steps in developing a simulation program focused on PS/QI will be outlined with future opportunities for OTO-HNS simulation.

The disaster management cycle is an accepted model that encompasses preparation for and recovery from large-scale disasters. Over the past decade, India's Pediatric Simulation Training and Research Society has developed a national-scale simulation delivery platform, termed the Simulathon, with a period prevalence methodology that integrates with core aspects of this model. As an exemplar of the effectiveness of this approach, we describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of the 2020 Simulathon, conducted from April 20 to May 20 in response to the nascent COVID-19 pandemic disaster. We conclude by discussing how aspects of the COVID-19 Simulathon enabled us to address key aspects of the disaster management cycle, as well as challenges that we encountered. We present a roadmap by which other simulation programs in low- and middle-income countries could enact a similar process.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid implementation and refinement of distance simulation methodologies in which participants and/or facilitators are not physically colocated. A review of the distance simulation literature showed that heterogeneity in many areas (including nomenclature, methodology, and outcomes) limited the ability to identify best practice. In April 2020, the Healthcare Distance Simulation Collaboration was formed with the goal of addressing these issues. The aim of this study was to identify future research priorities in the field of distance simulation using data derived from this summit. Methods This study analyzed textual data gathered during the consensus process conducted at the inaugural Healthcare Distance Simulation Summit to explore participant perceptions of the most pressing research questions regarding distance simulation. Participants discussed education and patient safety standards, simulation facilitators and barriers, and research priorities. Data were qualitatively analyzed using an explicitly constructivist thematic analysis approach, resulting in the creation of a theoretical framework. Results Our sample included 302 participants who represented 29 countries. We identified 42 codes clustered within 4 themes concerning key areas in which further research into distance simulation is needed: (1) safety and acceptability, (2) educational/foundational considerations, (3) impact, and (4) areas of ongoing exploration. Within each theme, pertinent research questions were identified and categorized. Conclusions Distance simulation presents several challenges and opportunities. Research around best practices, including educational foundation and psychological safety, are especially important as is the need to determine outcomes and long-term effects of this emerging field.

Introduction:Pediatric shock, especially septic shock, is a significant healthcare burden in low-income countries. Early recognition and management of shock in children improves patient outcome. Simulation-based education (SBE) for shock recognition and prompt management prepares interdisciplinary pediatric emergency teams in crisis management. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on in-person simulation led us to the development of telesimulation for shock. We hypothesized that telesimulation training would improve pediatric shock recognition, process of care, and patient outcomes in both simulated and real patient settings.Materials and Methods:We conducted a prospective quasi-experimental interrupted time series cohort study over 9 months. We conducted 40 telesimulation sessions for 76 participants in teams of 3 or 4, utilizing the video telecommunication platform (Zoom©). Trained observers recorded time-critical interventions on real patients for the pediatric emergency teams composed of residents, fellows, and nurses. Data were collected on 332 pediatric patients in shock (72% of whom were in septic shock) before, during, and after the intervention. The data included the first hour time-critical intervention checklist, patient hemodynamic status at the end of the first hour, time for the resolution of shock, and team leadership skills in the emergency room.Results:There was a significant improvement in the percent completion of tasks by the pediatric emergency team in simulated scenarios (69% in scenario 1 vs. 93% in scenario 2; p < 0.001). In real patients, completion of tasks as per time-critical steps reached 100% during and after intervention compared to the pre-intervention phase (87.5%), p < 0.05. There was a significant improvement in the first hour hemodynamic parameters of shock patients: pre (71%), during (79%), and post (87%) intervention (p < 0.007 pre vs. post). Shock reversal time reduced from 24 h pre-intervention to 6 h intervention and to 4.5 h post intervention (p < 0.002). There was also a significant improvement in leadership performance assessed by modified Concise Assessment of Leader Management (CALM) instrument during the simulated (p < 0.001) and real patient care in post intervention (p < 0.05).Conclusion:Telesimulation training is feasible and improved the process of care, time-critical interventions, leadership in both simulated and real patients and resolution of shock in real patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies where telesimulation has shown improvement in real patient outcomes.

Integrating “best practices” into healthcare is a daunting task; healthcare delivery may be the most complex dynamic process ever crafted by humans in our efforts to modify the biology, physiology, and culture of health and illness. Simulation, particularly simulation in situ, involving patient care teams in patient care spaces, provides unique insights as it closely approaches clinical Work-as-Done. Simulation “in the wild” may use technology-enhanced manikins, simple or elaborate physical models, or virtual or augmented reality representations of patients. Initially, simulation efforts focused on improving provider knowledge and skills, but practice now includes integration into quality and safety programs. Simulation is a powerful tool that can inform and enrich implementation processes to improve healthcare delivery.

ObjectivesSimulation‐based boot camps have emerged as timely vehicles to help novice residents develop the skills needed to manage medical emergencies. Geographically regional boot camps provide opportunities for interaction between residents and faculty from multiple otolaryngology programs. The Society of University Otolaryngologists (SUO) Boot Camp Task Force investigated the concept of regional access to otolaryngology boot camps with the goal of making more regional boot camps available for otolaryngology residents across the United States.Study DesignInterviews.MethodsThe SUO Boot Camp Task Force assessed regional access to otolaryngology boot camps with a focus on geographic distribution, curricular content, and finances. Boot camp directors were contacted by email and telephone and interviewed to elicit information on all these areas.ResultsData were available from 10 known regional simulation‐based boot camps designed for novice residents. Individual boot camps included from 12 to 30 residents and 10 to 50 faculty members. Curricula included both technical (ie, procedural) and non‐technical (eg, communication, leadership) skills for individuals and teams. Content was heavily weighted toward a variety of airway problems and management techniques, although various conditions involving hemorrhage, and airway fires were also addressed. Funding and expense structures had the greatest variability.ConclusionsConsiderable variability was identified among the known regional boot camps in terms of numbers of participants and finances, but fewer differences in curriculum. Geographic opportunity for 9 to 10 new boot camps was identified. The SUO Task Force recommends that a consensus be developed for several individual skill and teamwork scenario objectives to be included in each boot camp. Laryngoscope, 131:737–743, 2021

Health care workers 'muddle through' health care delivery because their efforts to provide the safest patient care require that they continually respond to evolving demands and shifting resources in the face of incomplete knowledge. Optimal solutions are transient, and the best patient care requires ongoing adaptation, negotiation and creativity. In situ simulation provides a mechanism to surface both hazards and solutions under current conditions without direct risk to patients. In addition, health care delivery knowledge and skills are often present in silos, and in situ simulation provides a means for health care workers to learn from, share, negotiate and collaborate with health care workers of other silos. Appropriately structured, in situ simulation allows for sharing of identified risks and solutions between individuals, teams and systems.

Summary Statement The disaster management cycle is an accepted model that encompasses preparation for and recovery from large-scale disasters. Over the past decade, India's Pediatric Simulation Training and Research Society has developed a national-scale simulation delivery platform, termed the Simulathon , with a period prevalence methodology that integrates with core aspects of this model. As an exemplar of the effectiveness of this approach, we describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of the 2020 Simulathon, conducted from April 20 to May 20 in response to the nascent COVID-19 pandemic disaster. We conclude by discussing how aspects of the COVID-19 Simulathon enabled us to address key aspects of the disaster management cycle, as well as challenges that we encountered. We present a roadmap by which other simulation programs in low- and middle-income countries could enact a similar process.

Introduction Simulation is increasingly integrated into graduate medical education, and simulation faculty generally attempt to optimize the fidelity of simulators and simulations on behalf of trainees, so as to approach the realism of actual patient care experiences. As residents and fellows participate as learners in simulations, which faculty design, this investigation sought to address whether fellows and faculty have similar perceptions of fidelity by comparing ratings of 2 types of simulation experiences. Methods Prospective single-center observational study comparing surveys completed by fellows and faculty participating in multiple simulation sessions during a one-day simulation-based boot camp. Results Overall, both the fellows and the faculty provided moderate to high ratings of fidelity for both a technical skill and a teamwork simulation session. Fellows' ratings of an airway skills session were significantly higher than faculty ratings in 4 of 6 questions but similar to faculty ratings of a teamwork scenario session. Conclusions Pediatric anesthesia fellows' ratings of simulation fidelity were at least as high as faculty ratings during an annual boot camp, suggesting that faculty in this setting developed simulations that the fellows found to be realistic. Faculty were relatively more critical of the fidelity of a skill session, compared with a teamwork scenario session. If this finding is generalizable, this may reassure faculty designing simulations for fellows. Continued inspection of the entwined nature of fidelity and simulation will help inform more effective learning for this growing educational modality.

Summary Statement The International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education co-hosted a novel research accelerator meeting with the International Pediatric Simulation Society in May of 2019 in Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together healthcare simulation scientists with resuscitation stakeholders to brainstorm strategies for accelerating progress in the science of saving pediatric lives from cardiac arrest. This was achieved by working in teams to draft targeted requests for proposals calling the research community to action investigating this topic. During the 1-day meeting, groups were divided into 6 teams lead by experts representing specific domains of simulation research. Teams developed a pitch and presented a sample request for proposals to a panel of expert judges, making a case for why their domain was the most important to create a funding opportunity. The winner of the competition had their specific request for proposal turned into an actual funding opportunity, supported by philanthropy that was subsequently disseminated through International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education as a competitive award. An inspired donor supported an award for the second-place proposal as well, evidence of early research acceleration catalyzed from this conference. This article is a summary of the meeting rationale, format, and a description of the requests for proposals that emerged from the meeting. Our goal is to inspire other stakeholders to use this document that leverages simulation and resuscitation science expertise, as the framework to create their own funding opportunities, further accelerating pediatric resuscitation research, ultimately saving the lives of more children worldwide.

Objective To test the feasibility and impact of a simulation training program for myringotomy and tube (M&T) placement. Study Design Prospective randomized controlled. Setting Multi-institutional. Subjects and Methods An M&T simulator was used to assess the impact of simulation training vs no simulation training on the rate of achieving competency. Novice trainees were assessed using posttest simulator Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores, OSATS score for initial intraoperative tube insertion, and number of procedures to obtain competency. The effect of simulation training was analyzed using χ2 tests, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 101 residents and 105 raters from 65 institutions were enrolled; however, just 63 residents had sufficient data to be analyzed due to substantial breaches in protocol. There was no difference in simulator pretest scores between intervention and control groups; however, the intervention group had better OSATS global scores on the simulator (17.4 vs 13.7, P = .0003) and OSATS task scores on the simulator (4.5 vs 3.6, P = .02). No difference in OSATS scores was observed during initial live surgery rating (P = .73 and P = .41). OSATS scores were predictive of the rate at which residents achieved competence in performing myringotomy; however, the intervention was not associated with subsequent OSATS scores during live surgeries (P = .44 and P = .91) or the rate of achieving competence (P = .16). Conclusions A multi-institutional simulation study is feasible. Novices trained using the M&T simulator achieved higher scores on simulator but not initial intraoperative OSATS, and they did not reach competency sooner than those not trained on the simulator.

Simulation can provide unique and important resources for qualitative research. In situ simulation, which involves teams of providers functioning within the clinical environment, provides opportunities for observation of and by frontline healthcare professionals in circumstances that closely replicate both exceptional and everyday clinical work. Information elicited during the requisite debriefing provides rich material for qualitative analysis of how healthcare professionals adapt, make decisions, coordinate teams and provide care. Simulation is a powerful modality, frequently underutilized, that supports the development of resilient, adaptive performance. Simulation debriefing provides unique opportunities for qualitative research as both facilitators and participants are actively involved in analysis as subjects and as collaborators, providing complementary perspectives.

STATEMENT:The International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education co-hosted a novel research accelerator meeting with the International Pediatric Simulation Society in May of 2019 in Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together healthcare simulation scientists with resuscitation stakeholders to brainstorm strategies for accelerating progress in the science of saving pediatric lives from cardiac arrest. This was achieved by working in teams to draft targeted requests for proposals calling the research community to action investigating this topic. During the 1-day meeting, groups were divided into 6 teams lead by experts representing specific domains of simulation research. Teams developed a pitch and presented a sample request for proposals to a panel of expert judges, making a case for why their domain was the most important to create a funding opportunity. The winner of the competition had their specific request for proposal turned into an actual funding opportunity, supported by philanthropy that was subsequently disseminated through International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education as a competitive award. An inspired donor supported an award for the second-place proposal as well, evidence of early research acceleration catalyzed from this conference. This article is a summary of the meeting rationale, format, and a description of the requests for proposals that emerged from the meeting. Our goal is to inspire other stakeholders to use this document that leverages simulation and resuscitation science expertise, as the framework to create their own funding opportunities, further accelerating pediatric resuscitation research, ultimately saving the lives of more children worldwide.

Although intraoperative emergencies are uncommon,1 we need to develop evidence-informed and contextualized guidance for intraoperative emergencies involving patients with COVID-19. At our academic pediatric hospital, we assembled a multi-disciplinary team to examine and adapt intraoperative emergency workflows to ensure safety for patients with suspected COVID-19 infection, and limit exposure for healthcare providers, with a focus on system improvement (rather than individual performance).