Mobile medical simulation for rural anesthesia providers: A feasibility study

Introduction Family practice anesthesia (FPA) providers are family physicians trained to deliver anesthesia care; they often practice in rural hospitals to facilitate surgical care. FPA providers in rural hospitals face challenges including professional isolation and limited opportunities for formal continuing education. To address needs identified by FPA providers, we piloted mobile medical simulation in rural Saskatchewan. Methods Using a logic model framework, we evaluated feasibility of a one-day interdisciplinary mobile simulation workshop for healthcare providers in a rural Saskatchewan hospital. As part of this mixed methods pilot study, we interviewed stakeholders to explore their perceptions of human and financial resources associated with delivering medical simulations in rural locations. Multiple simulation scenarios were utilized to train participants in clinical and professional skills. Participants completed pre- and post-workshop surveys to evaluate their experience. Results Financial and human resources included cost of renting, transportation of mannequins, and the time required to create the scenarios. Participants (n = 10) reported improved knowledge and found the experience valuable. The session prompted participants to reflect on their deficiencies in certain clinical procedures/skills and highlight learning strategies to address the gap. Discussion Mobile medical simulation brought continuing medical education (CME) to health professionals in a rural location, but the program was expensive. Our logic model may inform educators and administrators considering mobile medical simulation for physicians in rural areas when balancing resource allocation and the organization’s commitment to CME for rural physicians.


Introduction
Family Practice Anesthesia (FPA) providers are family physicians who have earned a certificate of added competence to deliver anesthesia care. FPAs provide the vast majority of anesthesia care in rural Canada, and are essential to the delivery of surgical and obstetric care in rural communities across the country. 1 However, there is a shrinking number of rural FPAs due to factors including burnout, isolation, and lack of opportunities for professional development. 2 Opportunities for continuing medical education (CME) for rural FPA providers are geographically distant, costly, and logistically challenging. 2 Rural physicians find it challenging to maintain skills due to the lower rates of complex procedures in rural practice. 3 In a recent survey of Canadian FPAs, respondents indicated that refresher time in a centre with a larger volume of complex cases and formal mentoring with specialist anesthesiologists or FPAs would support their continued practice. 4 Innovative strategies and approaches are required to strengthen and stabilize anesthesia care teams working in rural regions. 1 FPA providers have indicated the need for CME that supports sharing experiences and obtaining mutual support from colleagues. 2 Medical simulation (MS) imitates an interprofessional team environment and is used to provide training to healthcare providers (HCPs) with an opportunity and safe space to learn, practice skills, and make mistakes without harm to real patients. 5 Researchers investigating mobile simulation educational sessions for rural healthcare providers in nine southern Manitoban communities showed that although participants had limited or no previous access to high fidelity mannequins, they expressed high level of satisfaction with the simulation sessions with high ratings of the quality of learning, decision making proficiencies, and clinical reasoning skills. 3 Inspired by mobile simulations in Manitoba, we sought to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a mobile simulation intervention for improving self-reported clinical and professional skills in rural Saskatchewan healthcare providers.

Methods
Using a logic model framework, 6 we evaluated the feasibility of a one-day interprofessional mobile simulation workshop for 10 participants, including registered nurses and FPA providers. We used a logic model (Table 1) as a process tool during the program planning, implementation, and evaluation which helped us identify the various components (e.g. stakeholders, equipment, cost, etc.) and relationships between them. Following research ethics exemption as a program evaluation activity under Article 2.5 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement, we conducted a mixed methods pilot study. Primary outcomes included the financial and human resources required to run the workshop. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of the impact on participant knowledge and clinical skills using self-reported pre-post surveys and stakeholder interviews. Prior to survey distribution, we established face validity by having it reviewed by four anesthesiologists and educators and then revised the questions according to their feedback.

Stakeholder participant characteristics
Prior to the workshop, we conducted semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews with key stakeholders to identify the workshop objectives. Stakeholder participants who informed the workshop objectives and content included a senior leader in the Department of Anesthesiology, three urban specialist anesthesiologists who were also simulation specialists; two workshop facilitators; eight potential participants of the workshop, and leaders/administrators in the rural location. Themes from interviews with key stakeholders informed workshop content.

Intervention
Two specialist anesthesiologists trained in providing medical simulation facilitated the one-day workshop in rural Saskatchewan. They delivered four scenarios (previously used for training anesthesiology residents) that were comprehensive and addressed important clinical skills required in anaesthesiology and for delivery of care in a rural environment. The scenarios covered the following topics: Anaphylaxis, Intraoperative arrest, Can't Intubate Can't Ventilate, and Medicolegal issues. High fidelity mannequins attached to computer software were chosen for their ability to manifest physiological changes based on the clinical interventions administered by participants. Task-trainers were available to help participants practice specific procedures such as central line and chest-tube insertion. Following each simulation scenario, facilitators led a comprehensive debriefing for participants using selected illustrative video recordings of the sessions to provide meaningful feedback about changes that could be made.

Data collection
We conducted semi-structured interviews with facilitators post-workshop to explore their perceptions of human and financial resources required to run the mobile simulation scenarios in rural Saskatchewan.
Since learner reactions and perceptions to the simulation experience are often used for evaluation, 7 all 10 participants completed a pre-workshop survey (Appendix A) rating the extent to which they were currently able to meet the workshop objectives on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not at all, and 5 = Very much. Immediately after the workshop, participants rated their self-reported perception of the workshop's impact on clinical and professional skills, and learning gained from the case scenario sessions. Three participants were randomly selected to complete the 7-point Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) ©8 for each scenario, to collect feedback for future iterations of the workshop. One month following the workshop, we sought participant feedback to evaluate workshop content, and seek participant perceptions of whether and how the workshop changed their clinical practice. We deemed one month to be an adequate period for participants to reflect on the experience and practice skills learned.

Data analysis
Qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo 12. The thematic analysis involved in-vivo coding of responses, development of themes from the coded interviews, and refinement and description of themes. Survey data were analyzed using SPSS to provide descriptive analysis and to compare pre-post change in survey scores. All responses to open-ended questions were de-identified and coded for common themes.

Challenges
Lack of technical support for simulation equipment, time required to set up mannequins, and various cost issues (including transport of physicians & equipment, mannequin rental from a private sector business, physician facilitators' payment, credit application).

Results
Pre-workshop, stakeholders anticipated barriers to mobile medical simulation that included human and financial resources associated with infrastructure, time and travel logistics, the perceived interest in MS by HCPs, and the ability to implement MS CME sessions. Themes and subthemes from interviews with key stakeholders are presented in Appendix B, with illustrative quotations.

Post-workshop facilitator interviews
Workshop facilitators identified challenges such as human and financial resources required to implement medical simulation in a rural community, including lack of technical support, the time required to set up mannequins, and various cost issues (such as transport of physicians & equipment, mannequin rental from a private sector business, physician facilitators' payment, application for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits, among others); they felt that these challenges negatively impacted the implementation of the workshop. However, facilitators further commented that the workshop created the opportunity for interprofessional training and building relationships between rural and urban physicians.

Pre and post-workshop survey results
Mean self-reported clinical and professional skills scores improved, and standard deviations narrowed in each category between pre-and post-surveys. The total mean score of survey responses pre-workshop was 3.22 (SD=1.10) and post-workshop, the mean score was 3.71 (SD=0.88, effect size 0.49). The prepost change in scores was not significant. Participants reported that the workshop was impactful in enhancing communication with peers, patients, and family members, notably in survey questions pertaining to communication on medio-legal issues and disclosing health information to a patient or family. Despite reminders sent via email to participants, only one participant completed the onemonth follow-up survey, reporting better ability to manage bronchospasm, anesthetic toxicity, hypoxia, anaphylaxis, and post anesthetic complications. In addition, the participant reported knowing how best to disclose an adverse event to a patient or family and was very interested to participate in continuing medical education and skill development.

Debriefing scores
Debriefing scores showed that participants perceived the medico-legal scenario as extremely effective (mean = 7, Extremely Effective/Outstanding). Participants indicated that the scenarios on intraoperative arrest, can't intubate can't ventilate, and anaphylaxis were Consistently Effective/Very Good (mean = 6). Post-workshop, participants identified deficiencies in their clinical skills (e.g. epinephrine dosing for anaphylaxis; technique for cricothyrotomy) and learning strategies to address the gaps (e.g. will review vasopressin doses; will periodically review technique for cricothyrotomy).

Discussion
We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a mobile medical simulation workshop in rural Saskatchewan. While other jurisdictions have had some success in establishing robust rural simulation programs, our College of Medicine did not choose to support this initiative beyond the initial pilot, likely due to the resource-intense nature of renting the mannequin for the mobile workshop from a private sector simulation institute, reimbursing travel expenses, and payment for physician facilitator time.
At the time, our College of Medicine mannequins could not be taken out of University facilities for rural simulation because this fell outside the University's mandate. These challenges underscore the need for communicating the value and importance of stakeholder support to organizational leadership. 9 The small number of participants, self-report of participants perceptions, and the low response rate for the 1-month post-workshop questionnaire limit generalizability due to selection bias and reporting bias. The low response rate underscores the constraints faced by rural healthcare practitioners such as long work hours, inadequate health workforce and resources, and heavy on-call responsibilities. 1 However, the single respondent expressed an interest in further participating in medical simulation programs for CME and skills development, which is congruent with the high level of satisfaction expressed by participants in similar studies of mobile simulation in rural environments. 3 The use of pre-existing scenarios developed for anesthesiology residents enabled the provision of this mobile simulation workshop. Facilitators were already familiar with these scenarios, which may have reduced the burden of facilitating the MS. However, creating and editing the scenarios still required about 2-3 hours per scenario (8-12 hours total). A strength of this workshop was the ability to provide customized scenarios for an interprofessional rural health team in a familiar and authentic location of practice, a benefit which has been demonstrated in similar studies. 3,10 Training of rural physicians in facilitating simulations could reduce several limitations including unfamiliarity with the local set up.
Challenges to our pilot feasibility study of mobile MS included the facilitators' unfamiliarity with the local set up, and the lack of availability of technology and resources in the rural setting. These challenges may have been mitigated through a site visit early in the planning stages. 9 Although a technician was not part of the simulation team, the facilitators were able to carry out both the simulation and debriefing. Nevertheless, the facilitators experienced some technical difficulty during set up; we may have underestimated the technical needs of running the simulation. Therefore, having a technical team member may have made workshop set up more efficient. 9 Transporting the mannequins to the rural location was costly, due to the great distances between urban and rural areas in Saskatchewan. Some Canadian centers have developed a dedicated mobile simulation unit with the academic mandate of providing medical simulation in rural and remote areas. 3,10,11 Emerging interest in simulation delivered via video teleconference may address many of the challenges that arose due to equipment transport and facilitator time. 9 Parsons et al. are investigating telesimulation, the use of virtual medicine technologies to deliver meaningful simulation experiences to learners in rural and remote locations. 11 The potential to incorporate the use of telesimulation in rural settings could help reduce the need to pay for facilitator travel time. 11 Conclusion Within a logic model framework, this report highlights the objectives, resources, and activities invested to deliver mobile medical simulation to rural HCPs in Saskatchewan. Mobile medical simulation brought continuing medical education to health professionals in a rural location, but the program was expensive. Our logic model may inform educators and administrators considering mobile medical simulation for physicians in rural areas when balancing resource allocation and the organization's commitment to CME for rural physicians. Results suggest thatdespite the resource-intensive nature of mobile simulation activities -it is valuable to make CME training sessions more accessible in rural settings and provide medical simulation in the same environment that services are delivered. Feedback from workshop participants suggests that mobile medical simulation has the potential to improve the clinical and professional skills of anesthesia providers in rural areas, but future studies with more participants are required. Future medical simulation workshops should consider delivering simulation via videoconference, establishing a travelling mannequin repository to reduce recurring costs, and using other methods of long-term evaluation to obtain richer feedback and objective measures of competencies.