ObjectivesTo achieve international consensus across multiple specialties on a generic ultrasound rating scale using a Delphi technique.MethodsUltrasound experts from Obstetrics-Gynaecology, Surgery, Urology, Radiology, Rheumatology, Emergency Medicine, and Gastro-Enterology representing North America, Australia, and Europe were identified. A multi-round survey was conducted to obtain consensus between these experts. Of 60 invited experts, 44 experts agreed to participate in the first Delphi round, 41 remained in the second round, and 37 completed the third Delphi round. Seven key elements of the ultrasound examination were identified from existing literature and recommendations from international ultrasound societies. All experts rated the importance of these seven elements on a five-point Likert scale in the first round and suggested potential new elements for the assessment of ultrasound skills. In the second round, the experts re-rated all elements and a third round was conducted to allow final comments. Agreement on which elements to include in the final rating scale was pre-defined as more than 80% of the experts rating an element four or five, on importance to the ultrasound examination.ResultsTwo additional elements were suggested by more than 10% of the experts in the first Delphi round. Consensus was obtained to include these two new elements along with five of the original elements in the final assessment instrument: 1) Indication for the examination 2) Applied knowledge of ultrasound equipment 3) Image optimization 4) Systematic examination 5) Interpretation of images 6) Documentation of examination and 7) Medical decision making.ConclusionInternational multispecialty consensus was achieved on the content of a generic ultrasound rating scale. This is the first step to ensure valid assessment of clinicians in different medical specialties using ultrasound.

BackgroundSimulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations.DiscussionNon-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed.SummaryBased on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of in situ simulation (ISS) versus off-site simulation (OSS) on knowledge, patient safety attitude, stress, motivation, perceptions of simulation, team performance and organisational impact.DesignInvestigator-initiated single-centre randomised superiority educational trial.SettingObstetrics and anaesthesiology departments, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Participants100 participants in teams of 10, comprising midwives, specialised midwives, auxiliary nurses, nurse anaesthetists, operating theatre nurses, and consultant doctors and trainees in obstetrics and anaesthesiology.InterventionsTwo multiprofessional simulations (clinical management of an emergency caesarean section and a postpartum haemorrhage scenario) were conducted in teams of 10 in the ISS versus the OSS setting.Primary outcomeKnowledge assessed by a multiple choice question test.Exploratory outcomesIndividual outcomes: scores on the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, stress measurements (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, cognitive appraisal and salivary cortisol), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory and perceptions of simulations. Team outcome: video assessment of team performance. Organisational impact: suggestions for organisational changes.ResultsThe trial was conducted from April to June 2013. No differences between the two groups were found for the multiple choice question test, patient safety attitude, stress measurements, motivation or the evaluation of the simulations. The participants in the ISS group scored the authenticity of the simulation significantly higher than did the participants in the OSS group. Expert video assessment of team performance showed no differences between the ISS versus the OSS group. The ISS group provided more ideas and suggestions for changes at the organisational level.ConclusionsIn this randomised trial, no significant differences were found regarding knowledge, patient safety attitude, motivation or stress measurements when comparing ISS versus OSS. Although participant perception of the authenticity of ISS versus OSS differed significantly, there were no differences in other outcomes between the groups except that the ISS group generated more suggestions for organisational changes.Trial registration numberNCT01792674.