Simulation Curriculum Integration via a Competency Based Model

Process_Integration.shutterstock_304375844One of the things that is a challenge for healthcare education is the reliance on random opportunity for clinical events to present themselves for a given group of learners to encounter as part of a pathway of a structured learning curriculum. This uncertainty of exposure and eventual development of competency is part of what keep our educational systems time-based which is fraught with inefficiencies by its very nature.

Simulation curriculum design at present often embeds simulation in a rather immature development model in which there is an “everybody does all of the simulations” approach. If there is a collection of some core topics that are part and parcel to a given program, combined with a belief, or perhaps proof, that simulation is a preferred modality for the topic, then it makes sense for those exposures. Let’s move beyond the topics or situations that are best experienced by everyone.

If you use a model of physician residency training for example, curriculum planners “hope” that over the course of a year a given first year resident will adequately manage an appropriate variety of cases. The types of cases, often categorized by primary diagnosis, is embedded in some curriculum accreditation document under the label “Year 1.” For the purposes of this discussion lets change the terminology from Year 1 to Level 1 as we look toward the future.

What if we had a way to know that a resident managed the cases, and managed them well for level one? Perhaps one resident could accomplish the level one goals in six months, and do it well. Let’s call that resident, Dr. Fast. This could then lead to a more appropriate advancement of the resident though the training program as opposed to them advancing by the date on the calendar.

Now let’s think about it from another angle. Another resident who didn’t quite see all of the cases, or the variety of cases needed, but they are managing things well when they do it. Let’s call them Dr. Slow. A third resident of the program is managing an adequate number and variety, but is having quality issues. Let’s refer to them as Dr. Mess. An honest assessment of the current system is that all three residents will likely be advanced to hire levels of responsibilities based on the calendar without substantial attempt at remediation of understanding of the underlying deficiencies.

What are the program or educational goals for Drs. Fast, Slow and Mess? What are the differences? What are the similarities? What information does the program need to begin thinking in this competency based model? Is that information available now? Will it likely be in the future? Does it make sense that we will spend time and resources to put all three residents through the same simulation curriculum?

While there may be many operational, culture, historical models and work conditions that provide barriers to such a model, thinking about a switch to a competency based model forces one to think deeper about the details of the overall mission. The true forms of educational methods, assessment tools, exposure to cases and environments, should be explored for both efficiency and effective effectiveness. Ultimately the outcomes we are trying to achieve for a given learner progressing through a program would be unveiled. Confidence in the underlying data will be a fundamental necessary component of a competency based system. In this simple model, the two functional data points are quantity and quality of given opportunities to learn and demonstrate competence.

This sets up intriguing possibilities for the embedding of simulation into the core curriculum to function in a more dynamic way and contribute mightily to the program outcomes.

Now think of the needs of Dr. Slow and Dr. Mess. If we had insight combined with reliable data, we could customize the simulation pathway for the learner to maximally benefit their progression through the program. We may need to provide supplement simulations to Dr. Slow to allow practice with a wider spectrum of cases, or a specific diagnosis, category of patient, or situation for them to obtain exposure. Ideally this additional exposure that is providing deliberate practice opportunities could also include learning objectives to help them increase their efficiencies.

In the case of Dr. Mess, the customization of the simulation portion of the curriculum provide deliberate practice opportunities with targeted feedback directly relevant to their area(s) of deficiency, ie a remediation model. This exposure for Dr. Mess could be constructed to provide a certain category of patient, or perhaps situation, that they are reported to handle poorly. The benefit in the case of Dr. Mess is the simulated environment can often be used to tease out the details of the underlying deficiency in a way that learning in the actual patient care environment is unable to expose.

Lastly, in our model recall that Dr. Fast may not require any “supplemental” simulation thus freeing up sparse simulation and human resources necessary to conduct it. This is part of the gains in efficiencies that can be realized through a competency -based approach to incorporating simulation into a given curriculum.

Considering a switch to a competency based curriculum in healthcare education can be overwhelming simply based on the number of operational and administrative challenges. However, using a concept of a competency based implementation as a theoretical model can help envision a more thoughtful approach to curricular integration of simulation. If we move forward in a deliberate attempt to utilize simulation in a more dynamic way, it will lead to increases in efficiencies and effectiveness along with providing better stewardship of scarce resources.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Evaluating Inpatient Crisis Response

shutterstock_168180668_a

As the Medical Director of patient safety for a large healthcare system I can say that conducting unannounced “mock codes” (Inpatient Crisis Response Evaluation System is the title of our program) is a critical pillar of safety quality improvement efforts. WISER oversees our program and provides the evaluation and consultation service to many of our 20 hospitals in conjunction with and close collaboration with the local hospital physician and nursing leadership.

The unannounced part allows true system evaluation of such a response. The events are closely choreographed with our simulation team (led by a physician medical director), as well as the local hospital leadership. Our evaluation system has afforded us as a system, the opportunity to unveil many latent system threats as well as identify opportunities for targeted training efforts. With regard to simulation and training it is a TRUE needs analysis in this way.

With regard to acceptance, I believe that it is related to the maturity of the overall organization and the simulation personnel conducting the events. In the words of James Reason on high reliability organizations “They anticipate the worst and equip themselves to deal with it at all levels of the organization. It is hard, even unnatural, for individuals to remain chronically uneasy, so their organizational culture takes on a profound significance. Individuals may forget to be afraid, but the culture of a high reliability organization provides them with both the reminders and the tools to help them remember.” Thus I believe in highly mature safety culture organizations it is incumbent upon both the leadership and the healthcare clinicians to be accepting of “external” evaluations for such critical moments as inpatient crisis events.

I also believe that the naming of the program has significant implications. The title “Mock Code” in my opinion sounds somewhat trivial, extra, perhaps of marginal utility, or at the very least “fake.” If that is the intent, then I believe that is easier to argue that the events should be pre-planned and/or avoid being completely “unexpected”. However if the intent is to seriously evaluate a high reliability organization’s response to an unexpected patient situation, and identify needs, process improvement opportunities and uncover latent threats, I would argue for the unannounced methodology.

Our health system shares a deep commitment to continue on the journey to high reliability and believe our Inpatient Crisis Response Evaluation System is an important component of our success. As WISER is accredited by the SSH in Systems Integration (among other categories) we believe a fully integrated approach is necessary, very safe, feasible and our responsibility to execute and provide feedback to our health system.shutterstock_78054850_a

As anyone who provides actual care for patients there are risks and benefits to ALL decision that are made from therapeutics, to staffing, to salting the parking lot. There are certainly safety items that must be attended to in any of our simulation efforts, particularly those which occur in proximity to actual care. However carefully crafted programs, process and execution will ultimately ensure the benefits outweigh the risks.

I truly believe the undiscovered system latent threats to inpatients are a greater risk than the conducting of the mock code itself.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lecture: It’s not Dead Yet

LectureNotDeadFellow simulationists, let’s get real. We should not be the enemy of lecture. Lecture is a very valuable form of education. What we should be campaigning against are bad lectures, and the use of lecture when it isn’t the best tool for the associated attempt at education.

We have all listened to lectures that were horrific and/or lectures presented by speakers who have/had horrific public speaking or presenting skills. But in essence a good lecture can be an incredibly efficient transfer of information. The one to many configuration that is in inherent in the format of lecture can lead to an amazing amount of materials covered, interpreted and/or organized by the presenter to raise the level of knowledge or understanding of the people in attendance.

Like anything else in education we need to stratify the needs of what we are trying to teach and create solutions by which to teach them. With regard to lecture as a tool, we need to find ways to engage the audience into active participation to enhance the comprehension, learning and attention of the participants. There are many tools available for this, some involving technology, some not. The onus is on the presenter to seek out techniques as well as technologies or creative ways to engage people in the audience into an active learning process.

I don’t think of simulation as an alternative, or better way to teach, then lecture. I view lecture and simulation as two different tools available to the educational design process to affect good learning. Much the same way that I would not say a screwdriver is a better tool than a pair of pliers.

Too many times at simulation meetings and in discussions with simulation enthusiasts I hear empirical lecture-bashings if it is old school, out-moded or something lacking value. During these conversations it becomes readily apparent that the person speaking doesn’t have full command of the fact that the main goal is education, not simulation, and that there are many ways to create effective learning environments.

Now lecture can get a bad rap deservedly. Go to a meeting and listen to a boring monotonous speaker drone on and read from their powerpoint slides while not even recognizing that there is an audience in front of them. Unfortunately that is still more common than not at many physician and nursing meetings. Or worse yet, in the new age of converting to flipped classrooms and on-line learning, people are taking the easy way out and moving videos of lectures and plopping them on-line and calling it on-line learning. How pitiful. How painful. The only thing I can imagine worse than a bad lecture in person, is a bad lecture on web based learning that I would have to suffer through.

So I still teach and lead workshops on helping people enhance their lecturing and presentation skills. In part because I continue to recognize that not only will lecture be around for a long time, it should be around for a long time because it CAN be incredibly powerful with the right preparation and in the right hands. Also I continue to recognize the value of seeing modern healthcare education efforts being carefully thought out to understand which tool is best for which phase of learning after careful evaluation of the intended learner group and the topic at hand.

We need to end the silo-like thinking of simulation is better than lecture and convert to a more outcomes oriented thought process that evaluates and implements the appropriate educational tool for the intended educational accomplishments.

So let’s commit to each other to never do a simulation that could be just effective as an engaging lecture, AND lets all agree to never do a lecture that sucks.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Simulation can be Fun. And Serious.

shutterstock_286597808aI was recently energized by sitting in the back of one of our simulation rooms where two of my faculty colleagues were running simulations for some of Emergency Medicine Residents. They had prepared the session well and had clearly established a previously great and trusting relationship with the residents in a safe learning kind of way.

The residents seemed relaxed, smiling, and many were attending the session dressed in the likes of Khacki shorts, Teva’s and a Hawaiian shirt or two. During one of the scenarios the faculty member operating the simulator made a mistake and the “patient” took a turn for the worse when the correct treatment was ordered. He was on the other side of the glass and immediately said something funny about his mistake over the room speakers in a self-deprecating way. Everyone in the room was cracking up including the other faculty members, me, all of the team members and the resident observers. The simulation came to an end a few minutes later as the rest of the learning objectives were met

During the debriefing the faculty member called out his mistake once again to another round of snickers. Superficially it seemed that he was trying to be funny. Deeper I think he was level setting to ensure there wasn’t confusion of the change in status over the patient. Additionally he was ensuring to demonstrate the safe learning environment in so far as declaring that he was capable of making mistakes as well.

A few moments later the residents were engaged in a debriefing using the Structured and Supportive Debriefing Model and the GAS tool. During the debriefing many topics were covered ranging from teamwork, the initial care and stabilization of the patient, to aberrancies in the electrical system of the heart leading to wide complex tachycardia that can mimic ventricular tachycardia.

A few minutes later the debriefing was wrapped up expertly by the faculty member. Another scenario ensued with a new group of residents and again, unplanned, something funny happened. Again laughter, then back to work, then the end. Debriefing commenced. During the second debriefing led to a discussion of how cyanide poisoning interacts with cellular metabolic pathways of the P450 cytochrome system and the therapeutics that should be considered to save the patient’s life. During the conversation a few light hearted comments by residents created more laughing.shutterstock_261594212a

I sat back thinking….. this is really fun…….There they are dressed in their tevas and shorts…..Learning of all things…… imagine that. This is truly patient-centric simulation. Innovative education occurring in a comfortable atmosphere helping these future emergency physicians perfect their diagnostic, therapeutic and leadership skills. They don’t need to be in scrubs, shirts and ties or wearing hospital badges to optimize this learning opportunity. They are not going to show up to work in the hospital wearing shorts and tevas. They are professionals. You know what? They are in fact adult learners being treated as adults.

I was a bite envious of my faculty colleagues having creating this amazingly relaxed environment where the residents felt comfortable to speak up, right or wrong in front of each other and faculty members alike.  In fact they were encouraged to explore during the cases. And they were learning. Learning new concepts or at least reviewing topics and learning objectives that were appropriate for their training program.

Guys and gals dressed as if they were going to a picnic, learning from each other, laughing and feeling free to explore and demonstrate their knowledge, skills and attitudes for the purpose of improving. Were they not taking it seriously? Cytochrome P450 and conduction aberrancies sure sounded serious to me, as did the discussion of teamwork and leadership.

Sometimes I think we can easily take ourselves too seriously in the simulation world. While I would be the first to argue there are times to do just that, I am reminded that there are times when it is not the case. People seem to be so caught up in defining rules of how things should and shouldn’t be done in simulation encounters that sometimes I observe huge opportunities to find new and interesting ways in which we can engage learners in their prime. I think that these faculty members new their participants well and designed amazing learning opportunities for them that included some of the power of simulation.

After all, we are not trying to simulate reality, we are trying to use simulation to create a milieu that will enhance our ability to carry out learning and assessment objectives that will eventually influence the care that is delivered by the healthcare system.

It was a great day for me, simulation and especially for future patients!

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ultimate Hot Potato – The Cost of Patient Safety Training and Why Hospitals Should Pay the Bill

082515_0520_TheUltimate1.jpgThe costs associated with education and training have historically fallen upon the individual professional in pursuit of such effort. The costs associated with a medical, nursing or other professional license or certificate are staggering. However the professional recognizes that such pathways are an investment in themselves. Once complete the education and requisite skills are “owned” by the individual and afford them the opportunity to have a career in healthcare. Thus the bill is paid by the ultimate beneficiary of the education.

When a hospital employs or partners (in the case of non-employee medical staff) with professionals they carefully screen and ensure the educational history and licenses are in order. The hospital expects the professional to be competent in their field. This is a reasonable expectation as the hospital is engaging in a financial relationship with said individual. In common arrangements the costs of certification, recertification, and licensing fall to the responsibility of the individual professional to achieve. Again, you could argue this to be fair, as the healthcare professional “owns” that side of the equation, at least at the level of individual competence. Continuing education and professional development activities enhance the ability of the professional to remain competent as well as competitive in terms or one marketability as a healthcare provider. Largely these efforts are aimed at knowledge based activities that allow one to remain current in their field.

In recent years schools of health sciences have tried to embed some aspects of teamwork and communications into their curriculums. However, these effort thus far are still aimed at what ones individual competency or knowledge is on how to be part of a team. There still remains a huge unmet need to have practicing professional engage in multidisciplinary education efforts surrounding this important topic. Some of these efforts may naturally include simulation.

Hospitals offer healthcare as a service to patients in exchange for payment. Contained within is a “contract”, or at the very least a commitment, to provide excellent care. Inherent in the delivery of excellent care is error-free care that avoids preventable harm from being experienced by the patient as a result of the healthcare service(s) that they receive from a given hospital.

Additionally there is a “contract” between the hospital and the healthcare professional with which they are associated, to provide excellent care, and logically this includes error-free care. In exchange for the professionals providing this service enables the hospital to derive income. This income is shared with the professionals through two basic mechanisms. The salaries paid to employed professionals such as nurses, physicians, pharmacists for example. The second basic mechanism is the ability of non-employed physicians to derive income to their practice for the services provided under the auspices of the hospital. In this latter case, it can be oversimplified to a description of profit sharing for the purposes of this discussion.

While the knowledge and skills of competent individuals are attained during training programs we know that there are education and training efforts that is necessary for professionals to be proficient at the system level. In other words there is training needed for individuals to be competent to work within the hospital of which they are associated. This may include such training as procuring competence in equipment or policies specific to a hospital, training in systems efforts at patient safety, as well as team training just to name a few examples.

While most healthcare providers accept that their education and training to maintain individual competence is their personal responsibility, they will likely draw the line at footing the bill for those needed efforts that are specific to a particular hospital in their systems efforts. Such training efforts represent those areas that the hospital should be responsible for. They represent the training that is above individual competence and afford system competence to the professional. This allows a system of professionals to engage in the delivery of excellent healthcare and keep patients safe so that the hospital can generate revenue from such service provision. Thus it is necessary infrastructure, much like the electric or water bill for the hospital.

In the over-cited United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) report “To Err is Human” from 1999, simulation is mentioned 19 times. Team training and teamwork is frequently mentioned throughout as well. So then how is it that we still don’t have standardized and/or mandatory implementation of team training efforts, patient safety training, or simulation efforts?

The fundamental answer is that the hospitals have not been encouraged, cajoled, regulated or developed the foresight and understanding that training for patient safety is core infrastructure. It is incumbent upon the hospital to invest in this partnership with care professionals who do their part to maintain the competencies, requirements and licensure at the individual level. This will be the only pathway forward to achieve meaningful result from patient safety training efforts. This argument is also predicated on the notion that the reader recognizes that true patient safety training takes more than watching bad powerpoints once a year to satisfy regulatory and accreditation compliance.

So let’s cool the potato, overcome the obstacles and embed the costs of training for systems excellence into the infrastructure costs of hospital care and truly move the needle on patient safety.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Great Debriefing Should Stimulate Active Reflection

shutterstock_284271476_aDebriefing in simulation as well as after clinical events is a common method of continuing the learning process through helping participants garner insight from their participation in the activity. It is postulated and I believe, part of the power of this “conversation” when call debriefing is when the participant engages in active reflection. The onus is on the debriefer to create an environment where active reflection occurs.

One of the most effective ways to achieve this goal is through questions. When participants are asked questions regarding the activity being debriefed it forces them to replay the scenario or activity in their mind. I find it helpful to begin with rather open-ended broader questions for two reasons. The first is to ensure the participant(s) are ready to proceed. Secondly asking broader questions at the beginning such as “Can you give me a recap of what you just experienced?” Helps to force the participant to think about the activity in a longitudinal way. Gradually the questions become much more specific to allow the participant to understand cause and effect relationships between their performance in the activity and the outcomes of the case.

Another thing to consider is that when debriefing multiple people simultaneously, when a recollection of the activity is being recalled by one participant, the other participants are actively thinking about their own recognition of said activity. Thus active reflection is again triggered. It is quite natural for the other participants to not only be thinking about the activity, but actively forming their own thoughts in a comparison/contrast type of cognitive activity. During this period they are comparing their own recollection of the activity with the one of the person answering the initial question.

Question should be focused in a way that the debriefer is controlling the conversation through a structured pathway that allows the learning objectives to be met. Further, when one develops good debriefing habits through the use of questioning it limits the possibility of the debriefing converting into a ”mini – lecture”.

I believe the Structured and Supported debriefing model created by my colleague Dr. John O’Donnell along with collaborators, provides the best framework by which to structure the debriefing. His use of the GAS mnemonic has effectively allowed the model to be introduced to both novice and expert debriefers alike and facilitate an easily learned structured framework into their debriefing work. We have been able to successfully introduce this model across many cultures and at least five different languages and have had significant success.

Worksheets, or job-aids with some example questions that parallel the learning objectives can be written on such tools prior to the scenario commencement. Supplementing the job aid with additional notes during the performance of the scenario can be helpful to recall the important points of discussion at the time of debriefing, and the preformed questions can serve as gentle reminders to the debriefer on topics that must be covered to achieve a successful learning outcome.

So a challenge to you is the next time you conduct a debriefing be thinking in the back of your mind how can I best force my participants to engage in active reflection of the activity that is bring debriefed. In addition, I would recommend that you practice debriefing as often as you can! Debriefing is an activity that improves over time with experience and deliberate practice.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Waste Time Learning On Real Patients?

MannequinMammalsOkay, admit it, this title will be challenging for some. Although the converse of the question is what some of the naysayers say about simulation. What’s the real deal? The real deal is learning from real patients is an invaluable part of the healthcare education experience. At the risk of alienating some we must think of the real patient experience as a “tool” in the educational toolbox. But there are many tools in the toolbox!

We must also recognize the value of learning in the simulated environment as an additional tool in the toolbox. When we have many different tools by which to complete a goal, going through the risks and benefits of each will help us make the proper decisions to allow us to proceed with the most efficiency and effectiveness in our educational endeavors.

When I observe aspects of examples of learning in the clinical environment I become easily frustrated with seeing examples of colossal amounts of time wasted while waiting for some nugget of education to randomly appear in the clinical environment. Paramedic and nursing students working in the clinical environment that are changing bed linens over and over again are clearly being used as a service to someone and not functioning in a capacity that is enhancing their clinical learning. Similarly interns that may be on a specialty care service that are dictating their 30th discharge summary of the month are probably being used more in a service capacity than one in an environment that enhances their education.

Some of the advantages of simulation include being able to structure the learning environment so that the time can be accounted for in a more robust fashion that helps to ensure that valuable learning opportunities are presented, encountered or participated in. Additionally the ability to do and re-do exist in the simulated environment, where as in most cases this is not possible in the actual clinical care environment.  This is important to enhance and create programs of mastery learning with incorporated deliberate practice. And this applies whether we are talking about individual expertise or that of groups of people working on collaborative goals in team training environment. Additionally, in many simulation program designs there is much closer oversight of what a learner or groups of learners is/are accomplishing in the simulated environment when compared to the oversight that occurs in most clinical learning environments.

Please don’t misunderstand; I am not trying to diminish the value of learning on real patients in the clinical environment. I am merely stating that there are pros and cons, limitations and capabilities of all different modalities of learning as we bring people along the journey of what it takes to become a practicing healthcare professional. It is one that is complex that requires multiple repetitions from different vantage points, perspectives, as well as opportunities for learning. Carefully evaluating those opportunities, the resources that are available in a given program are important concepts to ensure that we continue to improve the health care education for creating tomorrow’s healthcare providers.

Those who are in the capacity of creating new curriculum or revamping and revising old, would do well to think broadly about the needs of the learner, the level of learner and what would be optimal exposure to create the most efficient and effective learning at that point in time. We need to begin to challenge the existing status quo so that we can truly move forward in revising healthcare education to continue to allow people to achieve excellence.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized