Abstract
Purpose
Barriers to simulation-based education in postgraduate and continuing education for anesthesiologists have not been well studied. We hypothesized that the level of training may influence attitudes towards simulation-based education and impact on the use of simulation. This study investigated this issue at the University of Toronto which possesses two sites equipped with high-fidelity patient simulators.
Methods
A 40-question survey of experiences, perceptions, motivations and perceived barriers to simulation-based education, was distributed to 154 anesthesiologists attending a departmental conference. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and associations between responses were assessed using either the Chi-Square statistic or a one-way analysis of variance.
Results
The rate of response was 58%. Residents had experienced simulation-based education (96%) more often than staff (58%) and fellows (36%), (P < 0.001 respectively). Residents had also attended more simulation sessions than staff and fellows (mean 2.8 vs 1.05 and 1.04, P < 0.001 respectively). Residents and fellows found simulation-based education more relevant for their training than staff (88% vs 65%, P < 0.05). Eighty-one percent of the respondents identified at least one significant barrier that prevents or limits them from attending simulator sessions. Staff anesthesiologists perceived multiple barriers and identified ‘time’ and ‘financial issues’ as significant barriers.
Conclusion
Anesthesiologist’ level of training influences their attitudes towards and their perceptions of simulation-based education. This survey has identified perceived barriers that may limit a wider utilization of simulation. These results may be used to implement targeted actions such as course design, incentives, and information strategies, which could improve access and future use of simulation.
Résumé
Objectif
Les barriéres à la formation fondée sur la simulation en enseignement universitaire supérieur et en formation continue pour les anesthésiologistes ne sont pas bien connues. Nous avons émis ľhypothése que le niveau de formation pouvait influencer ľattitude face à ce type de formation et avoir un effet sur ľutilisation de la simulation. Notre étude a été réalisée à ľuniversité de Toronto qui posséde deux sites équipés de simulateurs de haute fidélité.
Méthode
Un questionnaire de 40 questions sur les expériences, les perceptions, les motivations et les barriéres perçues de la formation par simulation a été distribué à 154 anesthésiologistes en réunion départementale. Les données ont été analysées par des statistiques descriptives et les liens entre les réponses par le test chi-deux ou une analyse simple de la variance.
Résultats
Le taux de réponses a été de 58 %. Les résidents avaient plus ďexpérience de la simulation (96 %) que les spécialistes (58 %) et les boursiers (36 %), (P < 0,001 respectivement). Les résidents avaient aussi assisté à plus de sessions de simulation que les spécialistes et les boursiers (moyenne de 2,8 vs 1,05 et 1,04, P < 0,001 respectivement). Les résidents et les boursiers ont trouvé la simulation plus pertinente que les anesthésiologistes (88 % vs 65 %, P < 0,05). Parmi les répondants, 81 % ont reconnu au moins une barriére importante qui empêche ou limite la participation à des sessions de simulation. Les spécialistes ont perçu de multiples barriéres significatives dont le «temps» et «les questions financiéres».
Conclusion
Le niveau de formation des anesthésiologistes influence ľattitude face à la simulation et leurs perceptions de la formation par simulation. Les limites à un plus grand usage de la simulation, reconnues dans ľenquête, pourraient servir à des interventions ciblées comme ľorganisation ďun cours, des incitatifs et des stratégies ďinformations pour améliorer ľaccés à la simulation et son usage futur.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Morgan PJ, Cleave-Hogg D. A worldwide survey of the use of simulation in anesthesia. Can J Anesth 2002; 49: 659–62.
Gaba DM. Improving anesthesiologist’ performance by simulating reality. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 491–4.
Blum RH, Raemer DB, Carroll JS, Sunder N, Feinstein DM, Cooper JB. Crisis resource management training for an anaesthesia faculty: a new approach to continuing education. Med Educ 2004; 38: 45–55.
Glavin R, Maran N. An introduction to simulation in anaesthesia.In: Greaves JD, Dodds C, Kumar CM, Mets B (Eds). Clinical Teaching: A Guide to Teaching Practical Anaesthesia. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2003: 197–205.
Howard SK, Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Yang G, Sarnquist FH. Anesthesia crisis resource management training: teaching anesthesiologists to handle critical incidents. Aviat Space Environ Med 1992; 63: 763–70.
Byrick R, Cleave-Hogg D, McKnight D. A crisis management program for residents in anesthesia. Acad Med 1998; 73: 592.
Garden A, Robinson B, Weller J, Wilson L, Crone D. Education to address medical error—a role for high fidelity patient simulation. N Z Med J 2002; 115: 133–4.
Weller J, Wilson L, Robinson B. Survey of change in practice following simulation-based training in crisis management. Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 471–9.
Kurrek MM, Fish KJ. Anaesthesia crisis resource management training: an intimidating concept, a rewarding experience. Can J Anaesth 1996; 43: 430–4.
Chambers WA, Ferguson K, Prescott GJ. Continuing medical education by anaesthetists in Scotland: activities, motivation and barriers. Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 1192–7.
Tetzlaff JE, Schoenwald P, Jackman D, Smith J. Continuing medical education and the anesthesiologist. J Clin Anesth 1999; 11: 164–72.
Morgan PJ, Cleave-Hogg D, DeSousa S, Tarshis J. Identification of gaps in the achievement of undergraduate anesthesia educational objectives using high-fidelity patient simulation. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1690–4.
Issenberg SB, Pringle S, Harden RM, Khogah S, Gordon MS. Adoption and integration of simulation-based learning technologies into the curriculum of a UK Undergraduate Education Programme. Med Educ 2003; 37(Suppl 1): 42–9.
Wong AK. Full scale computer simulators in anesthesia training and evaluation. Can J Anesth 2004; 51: 455- 64.
Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med 2003; 78: 783–8.
Weller J, Harrison M. Continuing education and New Zealand anaesthetists: an analysis of current practice and future needs. Anaesth Intensive Care 2004; 32: 59–65.
Fletcher GC, McGeorge P, Flin RH, Glavin RJ, Maran NJ. The role of non-technical skills in anaesthesia: a review of current literature. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 418–29.
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS;Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Savoldelli, G.L., Naik, V.N., Hamstra, S.J. et al. Barriers to use of simulation-based education. Can J Anesth 52, 944–950 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022056
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022056