Clinical reasoning is the process of gathering and understanding information conducted by clinicians in the emergency medical services (EMS) so as to make informed decisions. Research on clinical reasoning spans several disciplines, but a comprehensive view of the process is lacking. To our knowledge, no review of clinical reasoning in the EMS has been conducted. Aim The aim was to investigate the nature, deployment, and factors influencing EMS clinicians’ clinical reasoning by means of a review. Method Data was collected through searches in electronic databases, networking among research teams, colleagues and friends, “grey literature,” and through ancestry searches. A total of 38 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion and were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis. The analysis resulted in an overarching finding - namely, the importance for EMS clinicians to adjust for perceived control in unpredictable situations. Within this finding, 3 themes emerged in terms of EMS clinicians’ clinical reasoning: (1) maintaining a holistic view of the patient; (2) keeping an open mind; and (3) improving through criticism. Seven subthemes subsequently emerged from these three themes. Results This review showed that EMS clinicians’ clinical reasoning begins with the information that they are given about a patient. Based on this information, clinicians calculate the best route to the patient and which equipment to use, and they also assess potential risks. They need to be constantly aware of what is happening on the scene and with the patient and strive to control the situation. This striving also enables EMS clinicians to work safely and effectively in relation to the patient, their relatives, other clinicians, associated organizations, and the wider community. A lack of contextually appropriate guidelines results in the need for creativity and forces EMS clinicians to use “workarounds” to solve issues beyond the scope of the guidelines available. In addition, they often lack organizational support and fear repercussions such as litigation, unemployment, or blame by their EMS or healthcare organization or by patients and relatives. Conclusion Clinical reasoning is influenced by several factors. Further research is needed to determine which influencing factors can be addressed through interventions to minimize their impact on patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0646-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to explore how contextualization of a healthcare simulation scenarios impacts immersion, by using a novel objective instrument, the Immersion Score Rating Instrument. This instrument consists of 10 triggers that indicate reduced or enhanced immersion among participants in a simulation scenario. Triggers refer to events such as jumps in time or space (sign of reduced immersion) and natural interaction with the manikin (sign of enhanced immersion) and can be used to calculate an immersion score.MethodsAn experiment using a randomized controlled crossover design was conducted to compare immersion between two simulation training conditions for prehospital care: one basic and one contextualized. The Immersion Score Rating Instrument was used to compare the total immersion score for the whole scenario, the immersion score for individual mission phases, and to analyze differences in trigger occurrences. A paired t test was used to test for significance.ResultsThe comparison shows that the overall immersion score for the simulation was higher in the contextualized condition. The average immersion score was 2.17 (sd = 1.67) in the contextualized condition and −0.77 (sd = 2.01) in the basic condition (p < .001). The immersion score was significantly higher in the contextualized condition in five out of six mission phases. Events that might be disruptive for the simulation participants’ immersion, such as interventions of the instructor and illogical jumps in time or space, are present to a higher degree in the basic scenario condition; while events that signal enhanced immersion, such as natural interaction with the manikin, are more frequently observed in the contextualized condition.ConclusionsThe results suggest that contextualization of simulation training with respect to increased equipment and environmental fidelity as well as functional task alignment might affect immersion positively and thus contribute to an improved training experience.

BackgroundImmersion is important for simulation-based education; however, questionnaire-based instruments to measure immersion have some limitations. The aim of the present work is to develop a new instrument to measure immersion among participants in healthcare simulation scenarios.MethodsThe instrument was developed in four phases: trigger identification, content validity scores, inter-rater reliability analysis and comparison with an existing immersion measure instrument. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the instrument and to establish validity and reliability. The expert panel consisted of 10 researchers. All the researchers in the team had previous experience of simulation in the health and/or fire and rescue services as researchers and/or educators and simulation designers. To identify triggers, the panel members independently screened video recordings from simulation scenarios. Here, a trigger is an event in a simulation that is considered a sign of reduced or enhanced immersion among simulation participants.ResultsThe result consists of the Immersion Score Rating Instrument (ISRI). It contains 10 triggers, of which seven indicate reduced and three enhanced immersion. When using ISRI, a rater identifies trigger occurrences and assigns them strength between 1 and 3. The content validity analysis shows that all the 10 triggers meet an acceptable content validity index for items (I-CVI) standard. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) among raters was assessed using a two-way mixed, consistency, average-measures intra-class correlation (ICC). The ICC for the difference between weighted positive and negative triggers was 0.92, which indicates that the raters are in agreement. Comparison with results from an immersion questionnaire mirrors the ISRI results.ConclusionsIn conclusion, we present a novel and non-intrusive instrument for identifying and rating the level of immersion among participants in healthcare simulation scenarios.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0018-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There is a need for improved research in the field of prehospital care. At the same time, there are many barriers in prehospital research due to the complex context, posing unique challenges for research, development, and evaluation. The present paper argues for the potential of simulation for prehospital research, e.g., through the development of an advanced simulation-based prehospital research laboratory. However, the prehospital context is different from other healthcare areas, which implies special requirements for the design of this type of laboratory, in terms of simulation width (including the entire prehospital work process) and depth (level of scenario detail). A set of features pertaining to simulation width, scenario depth, equipment, and personnel and competence are proposed. Close tailoring between these features and the prehospital research problems and context presents great potential to improve and further prehospital research.

New video technologies are emerging to facilitate collaboration in emergency healthcare. One such technology is 3D telepresence technology for medical consultation (3DMC) that may provide richer visual information to support collaboration between medical professionals to, ideally, enhance patient care in real time. Today only an early prototype of 3DMC exists. To better understand 3DMC's potential for adoption and use in emergency healthcare before large amounts of development resources are invested we conducted a visioning study. That is, we shared our vision of 3DMC with emergency room physicians, nurses, administrators, and information technology (IT) professionals working at large and small medical centers, and asked them to share their perspectives regarding 3DMC's potential benefits and disadvantages in emergency healthcare and its compatibility and/or lack thereof with their and their organization's current ways of working. We found that social and technical challenges can be identified regarding new innovations even before working prototypes are available. The compatibility of 3DMC with current ways of working was conceptualized by participants in terms of processes, relationships, and resources. Both common and unique perceptions regarding 3DMC emerged, illustrating the need for 3DMC, and other collaboration technologies, to support interwoven situational awareness across different technological frames.