Healthcare (Jan 2024)

Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Training through Simulation Using the Crisis Resource Management Tool for Primary Care Professionals

  • Marta Bernardino-Santos,
  • Daniel Arnal-Velasco,
  • Pilar Reboto-Cortés,
  • Cristina Garmendia-Fernandez,
  • Esther Renilla-Sánchez,
  • Ricardo Jose Navalón-Liceras,
  • Elena Botillo-Pérez,
  • Miguel A. Ortega,
  • Juan Ignacio Gómez-Arnau Díaz-Cañabate,
  • Juan A. De León-Luis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020230
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 2
p. 230

Abstract

Read online

This was a prospective observational study based on clinical simulation courses taught in 2017 at the IDEhA Simulation Center of Alcorcón Foundation University Hospital. Two courses in metabolic emergencies (MEs) and respiratory emergencies (REs) were offered to primary care physicians all over Spain. The main objective was to teach nontechnical skills (crisis resource management). Using a modified five-level Kirkpatrick–Phillips education evaluation model, level I (reaction, K1), level II (learning, K2) and level III (behavioral change, K3) changes were evaluated through surveys at the end of the courses and one year later. Thirty courses were held (15 ME courses and 15 RE courses) with 283 primary care physicians. The overall satisfaction (K1) was high: ME courses, 9.5/10; RE courses, 9.6/10. More than 80% of the participants rated the organization, resources, content, debriefing and scenarios as excellent, with no significant differences between the two courses. After one year (156 responses), the respondents for both courses reported that they would repeat the training annually (K2), encourage debriefing with colleagues (K3) and have modified some aspects of their workplace (K3), citing improvements in procedures and in the organization of the health team as the most important. After the ME course, few participants, i.e., 5 (6%), reported providing improved care to patients; after the RE course, 15 (19%) participants reported providing improved care; the difference between groups was significant (p p < 0.05)) and more useful tools for daily clinical practice (K3) (67% vs. 56.4%) and resulted in participants paying more attention to personal performance and to colleagues when working as a team (K2) (64% vs. 50%). Clinical simulation courses are highly valued and potentially effective for training primary care physicians in patient safety and CRM tools. Future studies with objective measures of long-term impact, behavior in the workplace (K3) and benefits to patients (K4) are needed. Based on the results of our study, the areas that are important are those aimed at improving procedures and the organization of health teams.

Keywords