Introduction The correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) limits transmission of serious communicable diseases to healthcare workers, which is critically important in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, prior studies illustrated that healthcare workers frequently err during application and removal of PPE. The goal of this study was to determine whether a simulation-based, mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice improves correct use of PPE by physicians during a simulated clinical encounter with a COVID-19 patient. Methods This was a pretest-posttest study performed in the emergency department at a large, academic tertiary care hospital between March 31–April 8, 2020. A total of 117 subjects participated, including 56 faculty members and 61 resident physicians. Prior to the intervention, all participants received institution-mandated education on PPE use via an online video and supplemental materials . Participants completed a pretest skills assessment using a 21-item checklist of steps to correctly don and doff PPE. Participants were expected to meet a minimum passing score (MPS) of 100%, determined by an expert panel using the Mastery Angoff and Patient Safety standard-setting techniques. Participants that met the MPS on pretest were exempt from the educational intervention. Testing occurred before and after an in-person demonstration of proper donning and doffing techniques and 20 minutes of deliberate practice. The primary outcome was a change in assessment scores of correct PPE use following our educational intervention. Secondary outcomes included differences in performance scores between faculty members and resident physicians, and differences in performance during donning vs doffing sequences. Results All participants had a mean pretest score of 73.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9–75.3%). Faculty member and resident pretest scores were similar (75.1% vs 71.3%, p = 0.082). Mean pretest doffing scores were lower than donning scores across all participants (65.8% vs 82.8%, p<0.001). Participant scores increased 26.9% (95% CI of the difference 24.7–29.1%, p<0.001) following our educational intervention resulting in all participants meeting the MPS of 100%. Conclusion A mastery learning intervention with deliberate practice ensured the correct use of PPE by physician subjects in a simulated clinical encounter of a COVID-19 patient. Further study of translational outcomes is needed.

Given the large scope of impact that disasters potentiate, it is understandably difficult to teach these skills effectively. Training programs can utilize this simulation-based curriculum to better prepare the nation's emergency medicine physicians for future disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:611-614).

Objectives: Procedural competency is an essential prerequisite for the independent practice of emergency medicine. Multiple studies demonstrate that simulation-based procedural training (SBPT) is an effective method for acquiring and maintaining procedural competency and preferred over traditional paradigms ("see one, do one, teach one"). Although newer paradigms informing SBPT have emerged, educators often face circumstances that challenge and undermine their implementation. The goal of this paper is to identify and report on best practices and theory-supported solutions to some of these challenges as derived using a process of expert consensus building and reviews of the existing literature on SBPT.Methods: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Simulation Academy SBPT Workgroup convened approximately 8 months prior to the 2019 SAEM Annual Meeting to perform a review of the literature and participate in a consensus-building process to identify solutions (in the form of best practices and educational theory) to these challenges faced by educators engaging in SBPT.Results and Analysis: Thirteen distinct educational challenges to SBPT emerged from the expert group's primary literature reviews and consensus-building processes. Three domains emerged upon further analysis of the 13 challenges: learner, educator, and curriculum. Six challenges within the "learner" domain were selected for comprehensive discussion in this paper, as they were deemed representative of the most common and most significant threats to ideal SBPT. Each of the six challenges aligns with one of the following themes: 1) From the

Problem Given the complex interaction among patients, individual providers, health care teams, and the clinical environment, patient safety events with serious consequences are most likely to occur in intensive care units, operating rooms, and emergency departments (EDs). With low-frequency, high-risk events such as pediatric resuscitations, health care teams working in EDs may not have the clinical opportunity to identify deficiencies, review and reinforce knowledge and skills, and problem solve in authentic clinical conditions. Without creating opportunities to safely practice, hospitals run the risk of having health care teams and environments that are not prepared to provide optimal patient care. Approach Researchers employed a case series design and used a train-the-trainer model for in situ simulation. They trained health care professionals (instructors) in 3 general, nonacademic EDs in the San Francisco Bay area of California to perform pediatric resuscitation in situ simulations in 2018–2019. In situ simulations occur in the clinical work environment with simulation participants (teams) who are health care professionals taking care of actual patients. Outcomes Teams made up of physicians, nurses, and ED technicians were evaluated for clinical performance, teamwork, and communication during in situ simulations conducted by instructors at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Debriefing after the simulations identified multiple latent safety threats (i.e., unidentified potential safety hazards) that were previously unknown. Each ED’s pediatric readiness—its ability to provide emergency care for children—was evaluated at baseline and 12 months. Next Steps The authors will continue to monitor and examine the impact and sustainability of the pediatric in situ simulation program on pediatric readiness scores and its possible translation to other high-risk clinical settings, as well as explore the relationship between in situ simulations and patient outcomes.