This is the first reported virtual PD simulator. Increased test scores were observed between pre- and post-tests by clinicians who completed testing, across disciplines, training levels, and resource settings.

Study Objectives We compared resident physician work hours and sleep in a multicenter clustered-randomized crossover clinical trial that randomized resident physicians to an Extended Duration Work Roster (EDWR) with extended-duration (≥24 hr) shifts or a Rapidly Cycling Work Roster (RCWR), in which scheduled shift lengths were limited to 16 or fewer consecutive hours. Methods Three hundred two resident physicians were enrolled and completed 370 1 month pediatric intensive care unit rotations in six US academic medical centers. Sleep was objectively estimated with wrist-worn actigraphs. Work hours and subjective sleep data were collected via daily electronic diary. Results Resident physicians worked fewer total hours per week during the RCWR compared with the EDWR (61.9 ± 4.8 versus 68.4 ± 7.4, respectively; p < 0.0001). During the RCWR, 73% of work hours occurred within shifts of ≤16 consecutive hours. In contrast, during the EDWR, 38% of work hours occurred on shifts of ≤16 consecutive hours. Resident physicians obtained significantly more sleep per week on the RCWR (52.9 ± 6.0 hr) compared with the EDWR (49.1 ± 5.8 hr, p < 0.0001). The percentage of 24 hr intervals with less than 4 hr of actigraphically measured sleep was 9% on the RCWR and 25% on the EDWR (p < 0.0001). Conclusions RCWRs were effective in reducing weekly work hours and the occurrence of >16 consecutive hour shifts, and improving sleep duration of resident physicians. Although inclusion of the six operational healthcare sites increases the generalizability of these findings, there was heterogeneity in schedule implementation. Additional research is needed to optimize scheduling practices allowing for sufficient sleep prior to all work shifts. Clinical Trial: Multicenter Clinical Trial of Limiting Resident Work Hours on ICU Patient Safety (ROSTERS), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02134847

Importance Online learning is increasingly prevalent throughout all stages of medical education. There is little published literature exploring what motivates healthcare professionals to engage with different types of e‐learning content. Learner motivations must be understood in order to design effective educational solutions and to optimize the overall online learning experience. Objective Examine engagement, satisfaction, and motivations of healthcare professionals using OPENPediatrics, an open‐access medical e‐learning platform. Methods Retrospective analysis of online survey data. Users were asked to report engagement and satisfaction with the platform, as well as to select motivations for using different types of content on the site: Courses, Simulators, and World Shared Practice Forum videos. Results Majority of respondents were physicians and nurses in North America and Europe. Overall satisfaction with the platform was high. Most frequently cited motivations for using Courses and Simulators were: learn basic and in‐depth information around topics, and learn how to deliver safer or more effective patient care. For World Shared Practice Forum videos, most commonly cited motivations were: learn in‐depth information about a topic, learn the latest advances or developments in an area, and learn how to deliver safer or more effective patient care. Interpretation We appreciated both commonalities and differences in learning motivations among clinicians accessing different kinds of medical e‐learning content. Respondents were consistently motivated to learn in order to deliver safer or more effective patient care, but they reported using different types of educational content depending on whether they were learning basic information versus updating or changing their knowledge.