Use of Virtually Facilitated Simulation to Improve COVID-19 Preparedness in Rural and Remote Canada

• Published in: Clinical Simulation in Nursing
• Main Authors: Reece, Sharon, Johnson, Monika, Simard, Kristin, Mundell, Annamaria, Terpstra, Nadine, Cronin, Theresa, Dubé, Mirette, Kaba, Alyshah, Grant, Vincent
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning. Published by Elsevier Inc. 2021
• Subjects: Featured Article; Canada; Northwest Territories
• Online Access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9329729/; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.01.015

BACKGROUND: The Alberta Health Services’ Provincial Simulation Program (eSIM) is Canada's largest simulation program. The eSIM mobile simulation program specializes in delivering simulation-based education (SBE) to rural and remote communities (RRC). During the COVID-19 pandemic, a quality improvement project involving rapid cycle in situ virtually facilitated simulation (VFS) for COVID-19 airway management and health systems preparedness in RRC was successfully implemented. METHODS: Between April 24 and July 31, 2020, a team of six rural simulationists (four nurses and two physicians) provided 24 VFS sessions with virtual debriefing to 200 health care providers distributed across 11 RRC in Alberta and the Northwest Territories, covering a geographic area of approximately 169,028 km(2). RESULTS: Video analysis of sequential VFS rapid cycle sessions using a standardized observational tool indicated decreased personal protective equipment (PPE) breaches by 36.6% between the first and third cycles. Teams demonstrated increased competency with airway management such as correct use of bag-valve-mask ventilation, and implementation of health system process improvements, such as incorporation of an intubation checklist. Improvements occurred on average over 2.2 rapid cycles completed within 1.3 weeks per RRC. Postsession self-reported participant electronic surveys indicated self-reported improvement in clinical management, teamwork behavior, and health systems issues outcome measures which were categorized based on the Crisis Resource Management and Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) frameworks. Of the 48 survey respondents, 86.1% reported that VFS was equivalent or superior to in-person simulation. The cost of VFS was 62.9% lower than comparable in-person SBE. CONCLUSION: VFS provides a rapidly mobilizable and cost-effective way of delivering high-quality SBE to geographically isolated communities.