Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation and Sepsis: What Is the Best Evidence?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sepsis

  • 3740 Accesses

Abstract

Introduction and objective: Simulation is used for training physicians by practicing cognitive skills in situations of crisis and for identifying problems by constructive resolution. Sepsis is a disease whose incidence and mortality are high. The use of simulation was evaluated in comparison with traditional education, in order to improve adherence to the different Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles.

Materials and methods: A systematic review of the literature, of the qualitative and integrative type, was carried out. Multiple primary databases, databases of systematic reviews, and metasearch engines were used. The MeSH terms were “medical,” “simulation,” “training,” and “sepsis” in articles published over the period from January 1990 to June 2014. Exclusion criteria were applied, whose quality was assessed by the modified STROBE instrument. Publication and selection biases were taken into consideration.

Results: Nineteen studies were identified in the main search. Three articles were excluded for reasons of language. Of the 16 potentially eligible articles, ten studies were rejected by the exclusion criteria. The STROBE instrument was applied to the remaining six articles; two of them were excluded due to low scores.

Conclusions: Simulation is an efficient method for teaching in sepsis. The development of high-quality studies is required, in order to identify the optimal method for improving adherence to the different Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ziv A, Erez D, Munz Y, et al. The Israel Center for Medical Simulation: a paradigm for cultural change in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81:1091–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kneebone R, Nestel D, Wetzel C, et al. The human face of simulation: patient-focused simulation training. Acad Med. 2006;81:919–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley P. The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Med Educ. 2006;40:254–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sexton HJB, Thomas EJ, Helmreich RL. Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ. 2000;320:745–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Helmreich RL, Schaefer HG. Team performance in the operating room. In: Bogner M, editor. Human error in medicine. 1st ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR, et al. Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:861–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McIvor W, Burden A, Weinger MB, Steadman R. Simulation for maintenance of certification in anesthesiology: the first two years. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2012;32(4):236–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Graber MA, Wyatt C, Kasparek L, Xu Y. Does simulator training for medical students change patient opinions and attitudes toward medical student procedures in the emergency department? Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(7):635–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sherwood G, Thomas E, Bennett DS, Lewis P. A teamwork model to promote patient safety in critical care. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2002;14:333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leipzig RM, Hyer K, Ek K, et al. Attitudes toward working on interdisciplinary healthcare teams: a comparison by discipline. JAM Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1141–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arnstein F. Catalogue of human error. Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:645–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yee B, Naik VN, Joo HS, et al. Nontechnical skills in anesthesia crisis management with repeated exposure to simulation-based education. Anesth. 2005;103:241–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, Paz HL. Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:1244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1368–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Downey A, Quach J, Haase M. Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving a medical emergency team review for acute change in conscious state or arrhythmias. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:477–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rodriguez F, Barrera L, De Lar osa G, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in Colombia: a prospective multicenter cohort study in ten university hospitals. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(7):1675–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, et al. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kortgen A, Niederprüm P, Bauer M. Implementation of an evidence-based “standard operating procedure” and outcome in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:943–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zubrow MT, Sweeney TA, Fulda GJ, et al. Improving care of the sepsis patient. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(4):187–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Focht A, Jones AE, Lowe TJ. Early goal-directed therapy: improving mortality and morbidity of sepsis in the emergency department. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(4):186–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Puskarich MA, Marchick MR, Kline JA, Steuerwald MT, Jones AE. One year mortality of patients treated with an emergency department based early goal directed therapy protocol for severe sepsis and septic shock: a before and after study. Crit Care. 2009;13(5):R167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Moore LJ, Jones SL, Kreiner LA, et al. Validation of an screening tool for the early identifi cation of sepsis. J Trauma. 2009;66(6):1539–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zambon M, Ceola M, Almeida-de-Castro R, Gullo A, Vincent JL. Implementation of the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for severe sepsis and septic shock: we could go faster. J Crit Care. 2008;23(4):455–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. El Solh AA, Akinnusi ME, Alsawalha LN, Pineda LA. Outcome of septic shock in older adults after implementation of the sepsis “bundle”. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(2):272–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sebat F, Musthafa AA, Johnson D, et al. Effect of a rapid response system for patients in shock on time to treatment and mortality during 5 years. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(11):2568–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones AE, Focht A, Horton JM, Kline JA. Prospective external validation of the clinical effectiveness of an emergency department-based early goal-directed therapy protocol for severe sepsis and septic shock. Chest. 2007;132(2):425–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen ZQ, Jin YH, Chen H, Fu WJ, Yang H, Wang RT. Early goal-directed therapy lowers the incidence, severity and mortality of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome [in Chinese]. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2007;27(12):1892–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen HB, Corbett SW, Steele R, et al. Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(4):1105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Qu HP, Qin S, Min D, Tang YQ. The effects of earlier resuscitation on following therapeutic response in sepsis with hypoperfusion. [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2006;44(17):1193–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lin SM, Huang CD, Lin HC, Liu CY, Wang CH, Kuo HP. A modified goal-directed protocol improves clinical outcomes in intensive care unit patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial. Shock. 2006;26(6):551–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Micek ST, Roubinian N, Heuring T, et al. Before-after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(11):2707–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Trzeciak S, Dellinger RP, Abate NL, et al. Translating research to clinical practice: a 1-year experience with implementing early goal-directed therapy for septic shock in the emergency department. Chest. 2006;129(2):225–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shapiro NI, Howell MD, Talmor D, et al. Implementation and outcomes of the multiple urgent sepsis therapies (MUST) protocol. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(4):1025–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sebat F, Johnson D, Musthafa AA, et al. A multidisciplinary community hospital program for early and rapid resuscitation of shock in nontrauma patients. Chest. 2005;127(5):1729–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gao F, Melody T, Daniels DF, Giles S, Fox S. The impact of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles on hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2005;9(6):R764–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rivers E. Point: adherence to early goal-directed therapy: does it really matter? Yes. After a decade, the scientific proof speaks for itself. Chest. 2010;138:476–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mikkelsen ME, Gaieski DF, Goyal M, et al. Factors associated with nonadherence with early goal-directed therapy in the ED. Chest. 2010;138(3):551–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Corvetto M, Bravo MP, Montaña R, Utili F, Escudero E, Boza C, et al. Simulation in medical education: a synopsis. Rev Med Chil. 2013;141(1):70–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, González-Díaz G, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Edusepsis Study Group. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2294–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE Statement). STROBE checklists. http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.

  41. Issenberg BS, McGaghie WM, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulation that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kirkpatrick D. Evaluation of training. In: Craig R, Mittel I, editors. Training and development handbook. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1967. p. 87–112.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Williams JB, McDonough MA, Hilliard MW, et al. Intermethod reliability of real-time versus delayed videotaped evaluation of a high-fidelity medical simulation septic shock scenario. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(9):887–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nguyen HB, Daniel-Underwood L, Van Ginkel C, Wong M. An educational course including medical simulation for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: an evaluation for medical student training. Resuscitation. 2009;80(6):674–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hänsel M, Winkelmann AM, Hardt F, Gijselaers WH, et al. Impact of simulator training and crew resource management training on final-year medical students' performance in sepsis resuscitation: a randomized trial. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(8):901–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Li CH, Kuan WS, Mahadevan M, Daniel-Underwood L. A multinational randomised study comparing didactic lectures with case scenario in a severe sepsis medical simulation course. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(7):559–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ottestad E, Boulet JR, Lighthall GK, et al. Evaluating the management of septic shock using patient simulation. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(3):769–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mah WJ, Bingham K. Dobkin Ed, et al. Mannequin simulation identifies common surgical intensive care teamwork errors long after introduction of sepsis guideline. Simul Healthcare. 2009;4(4):193–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181abe9d6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Via DK, Kyle RR, Trask JD, Shields CH, Mongan PD. Using high-fidelity patient simulation and an advanced distance education network to teach pharmacology to second-year medical students. J Clin Anesth. 2004;16(2):144–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fitch MT. Using high-fidelity emergency simulation with large groups of preclinical medical students in a basic science course. Med Teach. 2007;29(2–3):261–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Van Sickle KR, Ritter EM, Smith CD. The pretrained 78 novice: using simulation-based training to improve learning in the operating room. Surg Innov. 2006;13(3):198–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Murray DJ. Current trends in simulation training in anesthesia: a review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2011;77:528–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bressan F, Buti G, Boncinelli S. Medical simulation in anesthesiology training. Minerva Anestesiol. 2007;73:1–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Woodward M. Epidemiology: study design and data analysis. Oxford: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2005. p. 849.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, WC MG, Wayne DB. Use of simulation-based education to reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1420–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, et al. Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b1802. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b1802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Pope C, van Royen P, Baker R. Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:148–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Jamieson S. Likert scale. In: Boslaugh S, editor. Encyclopedia of epidemiology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2008. p. 603–5. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412953948.n261.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bahl R, Murphy DJ, Strachan B. Qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings to establish the components of a skilled low-cavity non-rotational vacuum delivery. BJOG. 2009;116:319–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Benson AA, Bobo LS, Green MS. Comparison of video and real-time scoring techniques. J Allied Health. 2012;41(3):118–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jeannot E, Kelly C, Thompson D. The development of situation awareness measures in ATM systems. Eurocontrol: Bruselas; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wright MC, Taekman JM, Endsley MR. Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i65–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Bressan F, Cabrini L. Simulation and non-technical skills: the way is correct but more accurate researches are mandatory (Letter to the editor). Miner Anestesiol. 2012;78(11):1306.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Barsuk JH, WC MG, Cohen ER, Balachandran JS, Wayne DB. Use of simulation-based mastery learning to improve the quality of central venous catheter placement in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(7):397–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthcare. 2007;2:115–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Couper K, Salman B, Soar J, Perkins JD. Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Care Med. 2013;39:1513–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bhopal R, Macfarlane G, Cairns SW. What is the future of epidemiology? Lancet. 2011;378(9790):464–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Capuzzo M, Rambali M, Pinelli G, et al. Hospital staff education on severe sepsis/septic shock and hospital mortality: an original hypothesis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Girardis M, Rinaldi L, Donno L, Marietta M, et al. Effects on management and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit after implementation of a sepsis program: a pilot study. Crit Care. 2009;13:R143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Chen YC, Chang SC, Pu C, Tang GJ. The impact of nationwide education program on clinical practice in sepsis care and mortality of severe sepsis: a population-based study in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare not to have conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine Pulmonary Medicine and Critical Care Hospital Santa Clara, Universidad del Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia

    Guillermo Ortiz-Ruiz MD, PhD

  2. Hospital Virtual Valdecilla, Santander, Spain

    José M. Maestre & Ignacio Del Moral

  3. Center for Medical Simulation, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Demian Szyld

  4. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, USA

    Jenny W. Rudolph

  5. Hospital Santa Clara, Universidad el Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia

    Germán Díaz

Authors
  1. Guillermo Ortiz-Ruiz MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José M. Maestre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Demian Szyld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ignacio Del Moral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jenny W. Rudolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Germán Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo Ortiz-Ruiz MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine Pulmonary Medicine and Critical Care Hospital Santa Clara, Universidad del Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia

    Guillermo Ortiz-Ruiz

  2. Department of Critical Care Clínica Gestión Salud, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Colombia

    Carmelo Dueñas-Castell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ortiz-Ruiz, G., Maestre, J.M., Szyld, D., Del Moral, I., Rudolph, J.W., Díaz, G. (2018). Simulation and Sepsis: What Is the Best Evidence?. In: Ortiz-Ruiz, G., Dueñas-Castell, C. (eds) Sepsis. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7334-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7334-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-7332-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-7334-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation