|Study||Aim||Intervention||Control group||In situ/ex situ||Fidelity level (low vs high level mannequin)||Re-test (skill retention)||Outcomes measure||Main results|
|Bond et al. ||To share the development of a telehealth solution for shared awareness between the in situ simulation professionals and the ED bedside team caring for the in situ simulated patient, and the eICU nurses participating via telehealth.||
3/4 days workshop with in situ simulation.|
Site A: 3 sim days
Site B: 4 sim days
|No||In situ||Patient played by an actor and vital signs generated by Laerdal SimMan.||No||
Pre-post self-confidence in using telehealth.|
Pre-post self-confidence in managing ED patients with sepsis.
Telehealth was feasible with the equipment of choice.|
Pre-post self-confidence in using telehealth increased from a mean ± SD of 5.3 ± 2.9 to 8.9 ± 1.1 (Δ3.5, p < 0.05). Self-confidence in managing ED patients with sepsis increased from a mean ± SD of 7.1 ± 2.5 to 8.9 ± 1.1 (Δ 1.8, p < 0.05).
|Brewster et al. ||To show a new inter-professional team-based simulation, ALS training package would improve critical care staff performance, understanding, and satisfaction with ALS training||A 4-h workshop||No||NR||Resusci Anne®Simulator||Questionnaire 4 months after workshop attendance.||Changes in questionnaire scores pre-course, immediately after, and 4 months after simulation training.||
Overall ICU nursing attendance increased from 54 to 71%.|
Nurses gave higher scores for all criteria when assessing the new ALS training program compared to the previous program.
No significant improvement in perceptions of team performance.
|Chan et al. ||To evaluate the attitude of participants and their change in knowledge on clinical performance after attending a new training workshop.||2-day workshop (eight 1-h scenarios)||No||Ex situ||NR||No||Knowledge multiple-choice questionnaire.||Improved knowledge of clinical performance and training was well received.|
|Couto et al. ||To detect LST in a training program, which combined in situ simulation scenarios with just-in-time and just-in-place self-directed task training in an ED.||4 simulation weeks with in situ simulation in a year, 14–15 scenarios per simulation week; 10 min scenario, 10 min debriefing.||No||In situ||High-fidelity mannequin (SimMan 3G, SimBaby or SimNewB, Laerdal)||No||LST detected during debriefing.||The training allowed a high rate of detecting LST regardless of theme. Equipment-related LST were more frequently found.|
|Dagnone et al. ||To share the development and evaluation of a simulation-based competition.||3-day simulation-based competition, 3–4 scenarios per team.||No||Ex situ||Trained standardized actors||No||Characteristic of participants, their attitudes toward simulation, and their evaluation of the competition.||Participants were extremely satisfied with the event and expressed a strong desire to expand interdisciplinary team training in resuscitation.|
|Hicks et al. ||To evaluate the feasibility of a simulation-based CRM curriculum for EM residents and identify shifts in team-based behaviors and attitudes.||Precourse learning and 1-day course using simulated resuscitation scenarios paired with focused debriefing sessions. Four scenarios in total.||No||Ex situ||Two high-fidelity scenarios and two low-fidelity scenarios||No||Pre/post scenarios were scored using Ottawa CRM GRS. Pre-post survey on human factor attitude.||
Quality, relevance, and potential impact of training were highly positive.|
Improvement in Ottawa GRS, but not statistically significant from pre- to post-course.
|Marker et al. ||To identify first-year doctors’ perceptions, reactions, and reflection on transfer of skills after simulation-based training||4-days simulation-based training.||No||Ex situ||High-fidelity||No||Interviews||
Better communication and teamwork.
|Meurling et al. ||To explore differential individual training effects for physicians, nurses, and nurse assistants on self-efficacy and experienced quality of collaboration and communication between professionals||
4 h of interactive seminars concerning safe teamwork.|
1 day of simulation training, with a team comprising 6 persons.
Each team experienced 3–4 scenarios.
Staff turnover and sick leave.
Self-efficacy: The effect for women was 0.21 (95% CI 0.039 to 0.371) and for men 0.59 (95% CI 0.308 to 0.876).|
SAQ: Discrepant attitudes about teamwork between physicians and nurses. The scores for safety climate improved for nurses. Physicians did not change in scores.
Sick leave: Nurse assistants decreased their sick leave from 28 to 12%.
|Paltved e t al .||To enhance patient safety attitudes through the design of an in situ simulation program based on a needs analysis involving thematic analysis of patient safety data and short-term ethnography.||One scenario, 2 h per team (45-min scenario, 50-min debriefing)||No||In situ||Simulated patients||No||SAQ and Trainee Reactions Score||An in situ simulation program can act as a significant catalyst for improvement in emergency staff’s safety and teamwork attitudes that might correlate with a more positive patient safety culture.|
|Parsons et al. ||To design a CRM course for ED residents and to test the course’s efficacy.||
½-h lecture followed by 6 simulation scenarios, 3 active and 3 observed.|
Scenarios of 15 min with 30 min debrief.
|No||Ex situ||High-fidelity (actor or SimMan3G)||No||Ottawa CRM GRS.||Increase in score concerning leadership, problem solving, situational awareness, resource utilization, and communication. Not statistically significant.|
|Rasmussen et al. ||To identify long-term intended and unintended learner reactions, experiences, and reflections after attending a simulation-based ALS course.||ALS course. Duration NR||No||Ex situ||NR||No||Interviews||“(…) the efficiency dimension of ALS competence is taught well in ALS courses, but that the form and content of these highly structured/model courses are insufficient in training the innovative dimension of competence that is needed for transfer of skills in unstructured, emergency situations.”|
|Truta et al. ||To assess whether a CRM-oriented team training combining didactic and simulation sessions improves interprofessional EM team performance of non-technical skills.||1-day (6–7 h) lecture and 6 scenarios (3 active + 3 observed)||No||In situ and ex situ||High-fidelity manikin||Post-test 2 months after intervention||Scale from Flowerdew et al .||Improvement in management and supervision, teamwork and cooperation, decision-making, and situational awareness. Statistically significant improvements in all groups of participants.|
|Wong et al. ||To investigate agitation care delivery and to evaluate the impact of a team-based simulation on ED staff.||2-h course, 15 min simulation, focus group interview||No||In situ||Low-fidelity||No||
KidSIM ATTITUDES questionnaire.|
Uniprofessional and interprefessional focus group interviews.
KidSIM: Improvements in attitudinal scores for all questions within the relevance of simulation and opportunities for interprofessional education constructs (all p < 0.001).|
Interviews: The interprofessional conversations fostered insightful discussions regarding the development of novel team-based strategies and solutions for improved agitation management.