SC1 The design and implementation of a standardised multidisciplinary paediatric in situ simulation programme; a multi-centred approach. (17th November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Loughlin, Kate; Lofton, L; Trippick, S; Dimmock, V; Runnacles, J; Wong, S
• Is Part Of: BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning. Volume 2(2016)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A4
• Page End: A5
• Publication Date: 2016-11-17
• Subjects: Medicine -- Simulation methods -- Periodicals; Medical innovations -- Periodicals; 610.113
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000158.11
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2056-6697

Abstract

Abstract : Background/context: The Department of Health (2011) 1 recommends innovative, evidence based, high quality simulation for learning. ASPiH (2014) 2 have demonstrated national variation in the quality of simulation delivered in healthcare. Subsequently, ASPiH (2016) 3 outlined a framework of evidence based practice guidelines to promote quality assurance and support practitioners in their delivery of high quality simulation. This project was set up to review the paediatric in situ simulation (PIS) practices across the UCLPartners' network. This work informed a needs analysis on which a standardised interprofessional PIS programme will be developed based on the ASPiH (2016) framework. 3 Methodology: The project comprises five phases:- Research, Development, Pilot, Implementation and Evaluation. Phase one "Research" was completed over nine weeks. Current PIS provision across UCLPartners was assessed using a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, based on seven key areas outlined by the ASPiH (2016) framework. 3 Results: Eleven hospital sites were included in this study. Eighty-eight multidisciplinary simulation leads were identified. A third of these leads (n = 28) participated in semi-structured interviews and of whom 61% (n = 17) completed the questionnaire. There was variation in the delivery of PIS with 36% (n = 6) delivering weekly PIS. Diverse practice was also evident in scenario development with 71% (n = 12) identifying no structured learning objectives for nurses. 53% (n = 9) do not have regular interprofessional delivery of PIS. In terms of debriefing; 94% (n = 16) identified a need for debriefing training and 82% (n = 14) stated that quality assurance was not based on peer review. 29% (n = 5) share resources. However, all participants expressed a need for collaborative work across the network. Potential impact: Establishing a standardised PIS programme would set aspirational aims for the delivery of high quality PIS. Furthermore such a programme could facilitate collaborative work in quality assurance and research at a regional and national level.