Abstract Introduction In situ simulation (ISS) is a popular teaching method which uses simulated scenarios occurring in the actual clinical work environment of the learners. Our study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and identification of latent safety threats (LSTs) of two types of ISS in the Emergency Department (ED): announced and unannounced. Methods We conducted a mixed method study at a Level-1 trauma center ED, using announced and unannounced ISS sessions. Research Assistants conducted semi-structured individual interviews to measure acceptability, implementation, and practicality. We also assessed implementation and patient safety using quantitative parameters (number of cancelled ISS sessions, ED wait times, patients who left without being seen, latent safety threats). We performed thematic content analyses for the qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects modelling. Results In total, 84 emergency professionals participated in 18 simulations; 5 were unannounced and 13 were announced. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: the positive impact of ISS on patient safety, the preference for announced ISS, and the stress induced by ISS. The comparison of safety parameters showed no differences between both ISS modalities except for an increased number of patients leaving without being seen after unannounced ISS. Conclusion Our study found that both announced and unannounced in situ simulations are safe and practical for emergency medicine. They do not affect patient safety, or the number of latent safety threats. However, unannounced simulations were less feasible during a pandemic.
Truchot et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: