International Journal of Healthcare Simulation

Background and aim:

There is a well-recognized tension between clinical service provision and participation in learning events for junior doctors (JDs) in the UK [1]. JDs frequently report that they are unable to attend regular teaching due to departmental clinical pressures, representing lost opportunities for their training and development. Therefore, there is need for development of training methods which minimize impact on clinical service delivery.

Aims:

To develop a simulation training model for Emergency Department (ED) JDs which would a) deliver tailored learning objectives according to the participants’ level of training and b) have minimal impact upon ED service provision.

Methods:

The ‘Simulation and Personalised Education in the Emergency Department’ (SPEED) model was developed. On SPEED days, JDs and advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) who were undertaking clinical duties in ED on that day were invited on an individual basis to participate in a twenty-minute clinical simulation. Upon completion, the participant underwent a ten-minute debrief to reinforce predetermined learning objectives and supply feedback to simulation tutors before returning to their clinical duties in ED. Pre- and post-session questionnaires were conducted to assess acquisition of learning objectives. Training days were conducted in EDs of a UK Major Trauma Centre (MTC) and an associated small teaching hospital (TH). Departmental data on time to be seen by an ED clinician were collected retrospectively for SPEED days and comparable non-SPEED days, with differentiation between the majors and urgent care (UC) MTC sub-departments.

Results:

A total of 7 SPEED days were conducted over 6 months between September 2022 and March 2023 – 5 in the MTC ED and 2 in the TH ED. 65 JDs and ACPs participated across the seven days. On asking about the usefulness of the SPEED session for day-to-day practice, 41 participants responded ‘strongly agree’ and 18 participants responded ‘agree’. 6 of the 7 SPEED days demonstrated a positive mean difference in post-session questionnaire score when compared to pre-test questionnaire. There was no statistically significant difference in time to see clinician between SPEED days and comparable non-SPEED days in MTC majors (1h11m vs. 48m), MTC UC (2h41m vs. 2h25m), or TH (1h15m vs. 1h8m) (Kruskal-Wallis test, p > 0.05).

Conclusion:

The SPEED model demonstrates acquisition of learning objectives which are relevant to day-to-day practice. There is no evidence that delivery of this model significantly affects waiting times in either a small or large ED. Adoption of this training strategy may improve training opportunities for other ED clinicians.

Ethics statement:

Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.