Simulation training for foundation doctors on the management of the acutely ill patient

BACKGROUND: A study evaluating subjective trainee responses to simulation training organized by the Malta Foundation Program in particular whether this changed their clinical practice. METHOD: Feedback using a standardized questionnaire was obtained from 120 (M=55%) participants. A 0–10 Likert scale was used to evaluate responses. RESULTS: Participants scored the simulation sessions as “useful” at 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.4–8.0), rated “the overall experience” at 7.5 (95% CI 7.2–7.8), and thought it made a change in “daily practice” at 5.83 (95% CI 5.4–6.3). The score for the tutor “creating a satisfactory learning environment” and “quality of simulator equipment” was 7.8 (95% CI 7.6–8.1) and 7.7 (95% CI 7.4–8), respectively. Trainees rated “how close was the simulation to a real-life scenario” as 6.24 (95% CI 5.9–6.6). When asked whether the presence of colleagues hindered or helped, the majority were neutral 50 (41.7%), 36 (30%) said it hindered, while only 21 (28.3%) felt it helped. In contrast, 94 (78.33%) stated it was useful to observe colleagues while only 5 (4.2%) stated it was not. Likelihood for future participation was 7.4 (95% CI 7–7.8). Trainees recommended a median of 3 (interquartile range 2–5) simulations per year. CONCLUSION: Trainees rated the sessions as useful and asked for more sessions possibly at an undergraduate level. Rating for equipment and tutors was positive; however, some felt that the effect on daily practice was limited. Most were comfortable observing others and uncomfortable being observed. The value of increasing sessions to 3–4 per year, timing them before clinical attachments and audiovisual prebriefing for candidates naïve to simulation needs to be evaluated in future studies.