MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

O29 Impact of a high-fidelity simulation course focusing on leadership skills – the clinical emergency leadership (CEL) course

2019· article· en· W2986207691 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingMedical educationPsychologyFormative assessmentEducational leadershipCurriculumMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Leadership has been shown to be key for improvement in real<sup>1</sup> and simulated clinical emergencies.<sup>2 3</sup> Data from our SPRinT in situ simulation programme over 10 years showed lack of improvement in leadership scores despite improvements in other areas.<sup>4</sup> We hypothesised that a newly designed one-day simulation-based Clinical Emergency Leadership (CEL) course could improve leadership skills and confidence in attendees. <h3>Methods</h3> A focused, practical one-day leadership course was developed and delivered by interprofessional trained facilitators. It consisted of interactive Crisis Resource Management teaching, emphasising expert clinical leadership qualities based on literature and expert opinions. This was followed by 2 streams of high-fidelity simulation training scenarios, with one participant acting as team-leader each time. Each participant was able to act as team-leader at least once during the course. Structured debrief after each scenario using advocacy &amp; inquiry questions provided immediate formative feedback to learners, emphasising leadership and followership skills. <h3>Results</h3> [Figure 1] The course has been run twice. 25 participants attended (16 doctors, 9 nurses). Course evaluations explored participants’ leadership skills before and after the course, including 8 performance questions using a 0–100% level of confidence scale, based on the Kilpatrick model of learning. Analysis shows highly significant improvement in all scores (p&lt;0.001). Participants felt the training was enjoyable, engaging and relevant, with mean overall course rating 92%. <h3>Discussion</h3> Our new CEL course has successfully improved all participant’s confidence in all areas of leadership skills. The increase in confidence is statistically highly significant and is matched by the high enjoyment levels of the course. Since the course’s implementation, further qualitative feedback has been obtained informally. One participant (a Deputy Sister) was recently present at an out-of-hospital respiratory arrest. She stated ‘the leadership course really helped to change my whole perspective about arrest situations and give me the confidence to react when alone with no equipment and no immediate help.’ As far as the authors are aware, the CEL course is the only one in the UK specifically designed to deliver hands-on simulation-based clinical leadership training. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our newly designed Clinical Emergencies Leadership (CEL) course is unique in focusing on leadership skills during emergencies, proven to be highly relevant in resuscitation events. It has been highly successful in improving confidence of participants in all leadership scores. Further research is planned to evaluate the effect of the course on observed leadership skills based on validated scores, and to establish its long term effects. <h3>References</h3> Cooper S, Wakelam A. Leadership of resuscitation teams: ‘Lighthouse Leadership’. <i>Resuscitation</i>. 1999 Sep;42(1):27–45. PubMed PMID: 10524729.(Real resus videos analysed of leadership, LBDQ developed) Hunziker S, Bühlmann C, Tschan F, Balestra G, Legeret C, Schumacher C, Semmer NK, Hunziker P, Marsch S. Brief leadership instructions improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a high-fidelity simulation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):1086–91. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cf7383. Erratum in: Crit Care Med. 2010 Jun;38(6):1510. PubMed PMID: 20124886. (Medstudents better CPR with brief leadership instruction in sim) Hunziker S, Tschan F, Semmer NK, Zobrist R, Spychiger M, Breuer M, Hunziker PR, Marsch SC. Hands-on time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is affected by the process of teambuilding: a prospective randomised simulator-based trial. BMC Emerg Med. 2009 Feb 14;9:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-9-3. PubMed PMID: 19216796; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2656452. (Simulation prospective randomized 2 groups either team formed before, or adhoc at time of sim. Better performance leadership and overall in pre formed teams) MacGloin H, Lofton L, Sanz D<i>, et al</i> 7. The impact of in-situ simulation training on individual and team performance during real cardiopulmonary resuscitations on a paediatric intensive care unit (picu)<i> BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning</i> 2016;<b>2:</b>A17-A18.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it