Objectives: High-fidelity patient simulation provides lifelike medical scenarios with real-time stressors. Mass casualty drills must construct a realistic incident in which providers care for multiple injured patients while simultaneously coping with numerous stressors designed to tax an institution's resources. This study compared the value of high-fidelity simulated patients with live actor-patients.Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted during two mass casualty drills in December 2006 and March 2007. The providers' completion of critical actions was tested in live actor-patients and simulators. A posttest survey compared the participants' perception of ''reality'' between the simulators and live actor victims. Results:The victims (n = 130) of the mass casualty drill all had burn-, blast-, or inhalation-related injuries. The participants consisted of physicians, residents, medical students, clerks, and paramedics. The authors compared the team's execution of the 136 critical actions (17 critical actions · 8 scenarios) between the simulators and the live actor-patients. Only one critical action was missed in the simulator group and one in the live actor group, resulting in a miss rate of 0.74% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01% to 4.5%). All questionnaires were returned and analyzed. The vast majority of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed that the simulators were a distraction from the disaster drill. More than 96% agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend the simulator as a training tool. The mean survey scores for all participants demonstrated agreement that the simulators closely mimicked real-life scenarios, accurately represented disease states, and heightened the realism of patient assessment and treatment options during the drill with the exception of nurse participants, who agreed slightly less strongly.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that simulators compared to live actor-patients have equivalent results in prompting critical actions in mass casualty drills and increase the perceived reality of such exercises.

No abstract

Introduction Airway management is a fundamental skill of emergency medicine (EM) practice, and suboptimal management leads to poor outcomes. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a procedure that is specifically taught in residency, but little is known how best to maintain proficiency in this skill throughout the practitioner’s career. The goal of this study was to identify how the frequency of intubation correlated with measured performance. Methods We assessed 44 emergency physicians for proficiency at ETI by direct laryngoscopy on a simulator. The electronic health record was then queried to obtain their average number of annual ETIs and the time since their last ETI, supervised and individually performed, over a two-year period. We evaluated the strength of correlation between these factors and assessment scores, and then conducted a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to identify factors that predicted proficient performance. Results The mean score was 81% (95% confidence interval, 76% – 86%). Scores correlated well with the mean number of ETIs performed annually and with the mean number supervised annually (r = 0.6, p = 0.001 for both). ROC curve analysis identified that physicians would obtain a proficient score if they had performed an average of at least three ETIs annually (sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 64%, AUC = 0.87, p = 0.001) or supervised an average of at least five ETIs annually (sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 59%, AUC = 0.81, p = 0.006) over the previous two years. Conclusion Performing at least three or supervising at least five ETIs annually, averaged over a two-year period, predicted proficient performance on a simulation-based skills assessment. We advocate for proactive maintenance and enhancement of skills, particularly for those who infrequently perform this procedure.