Oral Themed Presentation
Oral Themed
Amy Romer, MD
Clinical Fellow
Stanford University Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology
Seth Kaplan, PhD
Associate Professor
George Mason University, Department of Psychology
Martin Biskup, BS
Doctoral Candidate
George Mason University, Department of Psychology
Froiland Ascano, RN, MS, NP, CPNP-AC, CCRN
Clinical Nurse
Stanford University Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology
Christy Besso, MSN, RN, CNS, CCRN
Clinical Nurse
Stanford University Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology
Lillian Su, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Stanford University Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology
Background: : Success of education programs is dependent not only of the content and quality of the educational material but also the motivation of the learners1. Therefore it is likely that individual and institutional attitudes about simulation-based medical education will have an impact on the success of simulation programs. A better understanding of how different professional groups view simulation may help guide curricular development that suits the needs of these different groups.
Research Question: : What are individual’s attitudes related to simulation-based medical education in the hospital setting and how do they differ between professional groups?
Methodology: : This survey was developed based on structured interviews on simulation attitudes and climate with staff members of a pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. The survey includes sections related to the simulation climate of the unit related to supervision, work design, coworkers, and resources, simulation implementation, and individual’s attitudes toward simulation. In addition it includes items on self-esteem adapted from the Rosenberg self-esteem scale2 and safety culture from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire3. Sample survey items are shown in Table 1. The survey includes 68 items answered using a 5 point Likert scale from strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree(5), or for some items, never(1) to always(5). Negatively worded items were reverse scored in data analysis. Basic demographic data were also collected. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc tests. Participants were recruited via a listserve for a simulation society and staff listserves at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford University. The study was IRB approved by Stanford University, Children’s National Medical Center, and George Mason University.
Results: : A total of 70 people took the survey including 30 physicians, 17 nurses, and 21 people in other roles which included respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and perfusionists. The results show positive scores overall in all areas evaluated in the survey (Table 2). In most areas there were no differences in ratings between the different professional groups: physicians, nurses, and others. However, physicians reported more positive experiences with coworkers related to simulation compared to nurses. In addition physicians reported more positive individual attitudes toward simulation compared to nurses or other professional groups.
Discussion/Conclusions: : Our data suggest overall positive attitudes related to simulation across disciplines. However physicians reported overall more positive attitudes toward simulation than the other professional groups. Further study is required to determine the reasons for these differences as well as their practical significance. However these results may suggest opportunities to tailor multidisciplinary simulation programs to promote engagement of non-physician participants.