Comparison of simulation debriefs with traditional needs assessment methods: a qualitative exploratory study in a critical care community setting

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the potential of a needs assessment approach using qualitative data from manikin-based and virtual patient simulation debriefing sessions compared with traditional data collection methods (ie, focus groups and interviews). DESIGN: Original data from simulation debrief sessions was compared and contrasted with data from an earlier assessment of critical care needs in a community setting (using focus groups and interviews), thus undertaking secondary analysis of data. Time and cost data were also examined. Debrief sessions were coded using deductive and inductive techniques. Matrices were used to explore the commonalities, differences and emergent findings across the methods. SETTING: Critical care unit in a community hospital setting. RESULTS: Interviews and focus groups yielded 684 and 647 min of audio-recordings, respectively. The manikin-based debrief recordings averaged 22 min (total=130 min) and virtual patient debrief recordings averaged 31 min (total=186 min). The approximate cost for the interviews and focus groups was $13 560, for manikin-based simulation debriefs was$4030 and for the virtual patient debriefs was $3475. Fifteen of 20 total themes were common across the simulation debriefs and interview/focus group data. Simulation-specific themes were identified, including fidelity (environment, equipment and psychological) and the multiple roles of the simulation instructor (educative, promoting reflection and assessing needs). CONCLUSIONS: Given current fiscal realities, the dual benefit of being educative and identifying needs is appealing. While simulation is an innovative method to conduct needs assessments, it is important to recognise that there are trade-offs with the selection of methods

A brain-based definition of death and criteria for its determination after arrest of circulation or neurologic function in Canada: a 2023 clinical practice guideline [Une definition cerebrale du deces et des criteres pour sa determination apres l'arret de la circulation ou de la fonction neurologique au Canada: des lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2023]

This 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline provides the biomedical definition of death based on permanent cessation of brain function that applies to all persons, as well as recommendations for death determination by circulatory criteria for potential organ donors and death determination by neurologic criteria for all mechanically ventilated patients regardless of organ donation potential. This Guideline is endorsed by the Canadian Critical Care Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society, the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation (representing the Canadian Neurological Society, Canadian Neurosurgical Society, Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists, Canadian Association of Child Neurology, Canadian Society of Neuroradiology, and Canadian Stroke Consortium), Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society.</p

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline