The use of simulation to prepare and improve responses to infectious disease outbreaks like COVID-19: practical tips and resources from Norway, Denmark, and the UK.

In this paper, we describe the potential of simulation to improve hospital responses to the COVID-19 crisis. We provide tools which can be used to analyse the current needs of the situation, explain how simulation can help to improve responses to the crisis, what the key issues are with integrating simulation into organisations, and what to focus on when conducting simulations. We provide an overview of helpful resources and a collection of scenarios and support for centre-based and in situ simulations

Improving Faculty Feedback to Resident Trainees during a Simulated Case

Abstract Background: Although feedback conversations are an essential component of learning, three challenges make them difficult: the fear that direct task feedback will harm the relationship with the learner, overcoming faculty cognitive biases that interfere with their eliciting the frames that drive trainees’ performances, and time pressure. Decades of research on developmental conversations suggest solutions to these challenges: hold generous inferences about learners, subject one’s own thinking to test by making it public, and inquire directly about learners’ cognitive frames. Methods: The authors conducted a randomized, controlled trial to determine whether a 1-h educational intervention for anesthesia faculty improved feedback quality in a simulated case. The primary outcome was an analysis of the feedback conversation between faculty and a simulated resident (actor) by using averages of six elements of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale and an objective structured assessment of feedback. Seventy-one Harvard faculty anesthesiologists from five academic hospitals participated. Results: The intervention group scored higher when averaging all ratings. Scores for individual elements showed that the intervention group performed better in maintaining a psychologically safe environment (4.3 ± 1.21 vs. 3.8 ± 1.16; P = 0.001), identifying and exploring performance gaps (4.1 ± 1.38 vs. 3.7 ± 1.34; P = 0.048), and they more frequently emphasized the professionalism error of failing to call for help over the clinical topic of anaphylaxis (66 vs. 41%; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Quality of faculty feedback to a simulated resident was improved in the interventional group in a number of areas after a 1-h educational intervention, and this short intervention allowed a group of faculty to overcome enough discomfort in addressing a professionalism lapse to discuss it directly. </jats:sec