Simulation technology for resuscitation training: A systematic review and meta-analysis

William C. Mundell, Cassie Kennedy, Jason H. Szostek, David Allan Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

93 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews. Study selection: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training. Data extraction: Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing "booster" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I2 values >50%). Conclusions: Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of "booster" practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1174-1183
Number of pages10
JournalResuscitation
Volume84
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

Resuscitation
Meta-Analysis
Technology
Health Occupations
Information Storage and Retrieval
MEDLINE
Curriculum
Language
Simulation Training
Confidence Intervals
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Advanced cardiac life support
  • Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • Hospital rapid response team
  • Mass casualty incidents
  • Patient simulation
  • Resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Simulation technology for resuscitation training : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Mundell, William C.; Kennedy, Cassie; Szostek, Jason H.; Cook, David Allan.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 84, No. 9, 09.2013, p. 1174-1183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ed0d8d912ff74cb38e46190018d1c4fa,
title = "Simulation technology for resuscitation training: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objectives: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews. Study selection: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training. Data extraction: Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95{\%} confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing {"}booster{"} practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I2 values >50{\%}). Conclusions: Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of {"}booster{"} practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.",
keywords = "Advanced cardiac life support, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Hospital rapid response team, Mass casualty incidents, Patient simulation, Resuscitation",
author = "Mundell, {William C.} and Cassie Kennedy and Szostek, {Jason H.} and Cook, {David Allan}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.04.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "1174--1183",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simulation technology for resuscitation training

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Mundell, William C.

AU - Kennedy, Cassie

AU - Szostek, Jason H.

AU - Cook, David Allan

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - Objectives: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews. Study selection: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training. Data extraction: Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing "booster" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I2 values >50%). Conclusions: Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of "booster" practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.

AB - Objectives: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of published reviews. Study selection: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions' learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training. Data extraction: Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges' g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing "booster" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features. Most analyses reflected high between-study inconsistency (I2 values >50%). Conclusions: Simulation-based training for resuscitation is highly effective. Design features of "booster" practice, team/group dynamics, distraction and integrated feedback improve effectiveness.

KW - Advanced cardiac life support

KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - Hospital rapid response team

KW - Mass casualty incidents

KW - Patient simulation

KW - Resuscitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84882929938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84882929938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.04.016

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.04.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 23624247

AN - SCOPUS:84882929938

VL - 84

SP - 1174

EP - 1183

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

IS - 9

ER -