2019 HSC Section 2 - Practice Management

Although simulation has many benefits, it does tend to take longer and have an added cost over alterna- tive teaching methods. 7 Both sessions in our study were delivered by a single trainer and took 90 minutes, but to optimize the simulations, a small group with additional trainers would be preferable. There are other additional faculty and candidate time requirements when compar- ing a simulation training program to basic lectures. Room setup and trainer preparation time were slightly longer, and simulation training should ideally not be a one-off experience, but a repetitive process with informa- tive feedback from educational sources to be given between the sessions to be most successful. 24 There was little room for improvement in the scores of many of our simulation-trained candidates, but more complex, less- familiar tasks may require more repetitive training ses- sions. However, for a basic intervention such as ours, the equipment required is often already available in most hospitals, and as demonstrated by our time- matched sessions, simulation need not take longer than lecture-based education. CONCLUSION We have demonstrated that in comparison to tradi- tional lecture based training, a mixture of lectures and emergency scenario simulation is a more effective method of teaching junior doctors ENT emergency man- agement. The simulation-based session better met the training needs of participants, and they were more likely to recommend the course. Implementing this kind of basic simulation training is feasible, with limited addi- tional resources and time, and we feel that scenario- based training should play a key role in preparing junior doctors for the initial management of ENT emergencies. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Smith ME, Lakhani R, Bhat N. The impact of the European working time regulations and modernising medical careers on out-of-hours ENT cover. Bull R Coll Surg Engl 2013;95:1–5. 2. Sharpe D, Farboud A, Trinidade A. “Is that the ENT SHO?”: concerns over training and experience of juniors expected to cross-cover ENT at night. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:275.

3. Sharma A, Machen K, Clarke B, Howard D. Is undergraduate otorhinolar- yngology teaching relevant to junior doctors working in accident and emergency departments? J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:949–951. 4. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;306:978–988. 5. Mundell WC, Kennedy CC, Szostek JH, Cook DA. Simulation technology for resuscitation training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resus- citation 2013;84:1174–1183. 6. Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, Cregan P, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ. A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg 2008;248:166–179. 7. Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 2012;7:308–320. 8. Resuscitation Council UK. A systematic approach to the acutely ill patient. Available at: https://www.resus.org.uk/pages/alsABCDE.htm. Accessed October 1, 2014. 9. American College of Surgeons. ATLS Student Manual . 9th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2012. 10. Roff S, McAleer S, Harde R et al. Development and validation of the Dun- dee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Med Teacher 1997;19:295–299. 11. Smith ME, Leung BC, Sharma R, Nazeer S, McFerran DJ. A randomized controlled trial of nasolaryngoscopy training techniques. Laryngoscope 2014;124:2034–2038. 12. Arora A, Lau LY, Awad Z, Darzi A, Singh A, Tolley N. Virtual reality simu- lation training in Otolaryngology. Int J Surg 2014;12:87–94. 13. Chin CJ, Roth K, Rotenberg BW, Fung K. Emergencies in otolaryngology- head and neck surgery bootcamp: a novel Canadian experience. Laryn- goscope 2014;124:2275–2280. 14. Malloy KM, Malekzadeh S, Deutsch ES. Simulation-based otorhinolaryng- ology emergencies boot camp: part 1: curriculum design and airway skills. Laryngoscope 2014;124:1562–1565. 15. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innova- tive model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Med Educ 2002;36:628–634. 16. Sedlack RE, Kolars JC. Computer simulator training enhances the compe- tency of gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy: results of a pilot study. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:33–37. 17. Kilminster S, Zukas M, Quinton N, Roberts T. Preparedness is not enough: understanding transitions as critically intensive learning peri- ods. Med Educ 2011;45:1006–1015. 18. Ziv A, Ben-David S, Ziv M. Simulation based medical education: an oppor- tunity to learn from errors. Med Teach 2005;27:193–199. 19. Maddry JK, Varney SM, Sessions D, et al. A comparison of simulation-based education versus lecture-based instruction for toxicol- ogy training in emergency medicine residents. J Med Toxicol 2014;10: 364–368. 20. Malekzadeh S, Deutsch ES, Malloy KM. Simulation-based otorhinolaryng- ology emergencies boot camp: part 2: special skills using task trainers. Laryngoscope 2014;124:1566–1569. 21. Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ 2004;38:32–38. 22. Khan K, Pattison T, Sherwood M. Simulation in medical education. Med Teach 2011;33:1–3. 23. Kneebone RL, Kidd J, Nestel D, et al. Blurring the boundaries: scenario- based simulation in a clinical setting. Med Educ 2005;39:580–587. 24. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR, et al. Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA 1999; 282:861–866.

Laryngoscope 125: August 2015

Smith et al.: Simulation Training for ENT Emergencies

221