Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
IN SITU: Evaluation of the feasibility and impacts of in situ simulation in emergency medicine, a mixed method study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Truchot Jennifer, Raymond-Dufresne Eliane, Boucher Valérie, Malo Christian, Brassard Éric, Marcotte Jean, Martel Guillaume, Garneau Christian, Coté Geneviève, Émond Marcel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In 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.
METHODS: We 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.
RESULTS: In 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.
CONCLUSION: Our 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.
METHODS: We 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.
RESULTS: In 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.
CONCLUSION: Our 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.