SESAM supported working meeting on pre hospital simulation

Report

The SESAM supported working meeting on pre hospital simulation took place in Stavanger, Norway from 21^st - 22^nd of April, 2009.

Institutes:

1. SAFER Center, Stavanger, Norway.

2. Arcada Patient Safety and Learning Center, Helsinki, Finland

3. Stiftelsen Norsk Luftambulance, Norway

Faculty:

Paramedic Helge Lorenzen¹

MD Olli Väisänen²

Paramedic Jan Martinsen³

Paramedic Juha-Pekka Laakso²

Paramedic Kjetil Torgeirsen¹

MD Stephen Sollid^{1, 3}

Aim:

The aim of the Working Meeting was to collect participants interested in prehospital simulation (PHS) to build up a network and discuss specifics of PHS.

Topics:

The main topics of this two day Working Meeting were: introduction, differences in prehospital Emergency Medical Service Systems in Europe, the specifics of PHS, simulating the patient transport and outdoor simulation.

Program:

Participants:

11 participants (6 physicians, 3 paramedics, 1 nurse and 1 educator) took the course with the faculty of six instructors. The countries which were represented were Norway (11), Denmark (1), Germany (1), Austria (2), Finland (2) and Italy (1).

Course evaluation:

The expectations of the participants were as following: to learn more about curriculum for the trainers, to know and do more research, to learn more about PHS, getting tips to simulation, to know more what has been done in PHS, to build a network, to compare different PHS models, to get the basics for PHS, to get familiarized to PHS, to get Tips and Trics, to learn from others and to have some information how to solve logistical problems while having PHS.   

The participants thought that PHS does not differ so much from other simulations, because: learning objectives are important also in PHS, scenarios need to be relevant, realistic and well planned, debriefing is important and needs to be in firm hands, instructors need to be well trained, the technical solutions must be in order and equipments needs to be familiar, interprofessional education is important and wireless manikins are handy but one can manage with low fidelity manikins or standardized patients as well.

However, the participants also pointed out that there are some specifics for the PHS: environment (such as difficult places) and weather conditions must be covered, visualization of the scene is important (photos, videos), limited equipments, space (ambulance, helicopter, boat) and backup needs to be emphasized, communication and co-operation with dispatching center as well as other authorities (police, fire brigade, army, coast guard) needs to be practiced.

The participants evaluated the course with Likert scale (1= disagree, 5 = agree) as follows (Mean+SD (range)): The course was well organized [ 3.8 + 0,7 (3-5)]; the course was accomplished with right level of difficulty for me [3.6 + 0.7 (3-5)],  I learned things which are meaningful to me in my work [4.4 + 0.7 (3-5)], I will change my practise in my work after this work shop [3.2 + 1.2 (2-5)], I wish more practical sessions in this work shop in the future [3.8 + 0.9 (2-5)]. They stated that before the course their skill level was (novice = 1, master = 5) [2.2 + 1.0 (1-4)] and after the course  [3.0 + 0.8 (2-4)]. Important discussions were made concerning the level of realism in PHS, the different simulation PHS settings as well as learning objectives and pedagogical aspects in PHS.

The workshop was an important network creator. The participants wish to continue the meetings once a year and gave valuable suggestions for the next programme. The next Working Meeting is planned to be held in spring 2010 in a center to be announced.