Search

Background: Achieving system-level, sustainable 'scale-up' of interventions is the epitome of successful translation of evidence-based approaches in population health. In physical activity promotion, few evidence-based interventions reach implementation at scale or become embedded within systems for sustainable health impact. This is despite the vast published literature describing efficacy studies of small-scale physical activity interventions. Research into physical activity scale-up (through case-study analysis; evaluations of scale-up processes in implementation trials; and mapping the processes, strategies, and principles for scale-up) has identified barriers and facilitators to intervention expansion. Many interventions are implemented at scale by governments but have not been evaluated or have unpublished evaluation information. Further, few public health interventions have evaluations that reveal the costs and benefits of scaled-up implementation. This lack of economic information introduces an additional element of risk for decision makers when deciding which physical activity interventions should be supported with scarce funding resources. Decision-makers face many other challenges when scaling interventions which do not relate to formal research trials of scale-up; Methods: To explore these issues, a multidisciplinary two-day workshop involving experts in physical activity scale-up was convened by the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Ottawa, Canada (February 2019); Results: In this paper we discuss some of the scale-up tensions (challenges and conflicts) and paradoxes (things that are contrary to expectations) that emerged from this workshop in the context of the current literature and our own experiences in this field. We frame scale-up tensions according to epistemology, methodology, time, and partnerships; and paradoxes as 'reach without scale', 'planned serendipity' and 'simple complexity'. We reflect on the implications of these scale-up tensions and paradoxes, providing considerations for future scale-up research and practice moving forward; Conclusions: In this paper, we delve deeper into stakeholders' assumptions, processes and expectations of scaling up, and challenge in what ways as stakeholders, we all contribute to desired or undesired outcomes. Through a lens of 'tensions' and 'paradoxes', we make an original contribution to the scale-up literature that might influence current perspectives of scaling-up, provide future approaches for physical activity promotion, and contribute to understanding of dynamic of research-practice partnerships.

Background: Research into adverse events in hospitalized patients suggests that a significant number are preventable. The purpose of this randomized, controlled study was to determine if simulation-based debriefing improved performance of practicing anaesthetists managing high-fidelity simulation scenarios., Methods: The anaesthetists were randomly allocated to Group A: simulation debriefing; Group B: home study; and Group C: no intervention and secondary randomization to one of two scenarios. Six to nine months later, subjects returned to manage the alternate scenario. Facilitators blinded to study group allocation completed the performance checklists (dichotomously scored checklist, DSC) and Global Rating Scale of Performance (GRS). Two non-expert raters were trained, and assessed all videotaped performances., Results: Interim analysis indicated no difference between Groups B and C which were merged into one group. Seventy-four subjects were recruited, with 58 complete data sets available. There was no significant effect of group on pre-test scores. A significant improvement was seen between pre- and post-tests on the DSC in debriefed subjects (pre-test 66.8%, post-test 70.3%; F(1,57)=4.18, P=0.046). Both groups showed significant improvement in the GRS over time (F(1,57)=5.94, P=0.018), but no significant difference between the groups., Conclusions: We found a modest improvement in performance on a DSC in the debriefed group and overall improvement in both control and debriefed groups using a GRS. Whether this improvement translates into clinical practice has yet to be determined.

Background: Teamwork and communication have been identified as root causes of sentinel events involving infant death and injury during delivery. However, despite the emphasis on team training as a way to improve maternal and fetal safety outcomes, valid and reliable markers of obstetrical team performance are not available to assess curricular efficacy., Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop and assess the usability of two obstetrical behavioural marking systems for use with simulation entitled Assessment of Obstetrical Team Performance (AOTP) and Global Assessment of Obstetrical Team Performance (GAOTP)., Methods: In a previous study, obstetrical teams were videotaped managing simulated emergency obstetrical scenarios. In the current study, 13 reviewers reviewed these videotapes and generated a list of behaviours judged to negatively or positively affect the teams' performances. Qualitative analysis using research team consensus and NVivo generated themes and subthemes. Research team members developed descriptors for poor and excellent team performance for each of the behaviours. Subsequently, the usability of the prototypes was assessed by an additional 14 reviewers., Results: In total, the reviewers identified 1294 items, which were sorted into 6 themes and 18 subthemes of obstetrical team performance. In terms of usability, the median amount of time that participants spent completing the AOTP was 7.5 min (range 1.5 to 50 min) and 75% thought the time requirement was moderate and manageable., Conclusion: Feedback regarding usability suggests that the AOTP allows for an accurate reflection of raters' assessments of the performance of the team, and as a whole, it is comprehensive, quick and easy to use. Studies are underway to establish the validity and reliability of the AOTP and GAOTP.

Purpose: Barriers to simulation-based education in postgraduate and continuing education for anesthesiologists have not been well studied. We hypothesized that the level of training may influence attitudes towards simulation-based education and impact on the use of simulation. This study investigated this issue at the University of Toronto which possesses two sites equipped with high-fidelity patient simulators., Methods: A 40-question survey of experiences, perceptions, motivations and perceived barriers to simulation-based education, was distributed to 154 anesthesiologists attending a departmental conference. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and associations between responses were assessed using either the Chi-Square statistic or a one-way analysis of variance., Results: The rate of response was 58%. Residents had experienced simulation-based education (96%) more often than staff (58%) and fellows (36%), (P < 0.001 respectively). Residents had also attended more simulation sessions than staff and fellows (mean 2.8 vs 1.05 and 1.04, P < 0.001 respectively). Residents and fellows found simulation-based education more relevant for their training than staff (88% vs 65%, P < 0.05). Eighty-one percent of the respondents identified at least one significant barrier that prevents or limits them from attending simulator sessions. Staff anesthesiologists perceived multiple barriers and identified 'time' and 'financial issues' as significant barriers., Conclusion: Anesthesiologists' level of training influences their attitudes towards and their perceptions of simulation-based education. This survey has identified perceived barriers that may limit a wider utilization of simulation. These results may be used to implement targeted actions such as course design, incentives, and information strategies, which could improve access and future use of simulation.

Objectives: This study was undertaken to determine whether or not breadth of clinical experience and student levels of confidence were indicators of competency on standardized simulator performance-based assessments., Methods: All students (n=144) attending an educational session were asked to complete a 25-point questionnaire regarding specific clinical experiences and levels of confidence in their ability to manage patient problems. For enumeration of clinical experiences, students were asked to estimate the number of times a situation had been encountered or a skill had been performed. For level of confidence, each response was based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1=novice and 5=expert. Students then participated in a standardized simulated performance test. Median and range were calculated and data analysed using Spearman rank correlations. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Level of confidence data were compared to performance during clinical rotation and to marks in the anaesthesia final examination., Results: A total of 144 students attended the session, completed the questionnaire and participated in the standardized test. There were wide ranges of experience and confidence in the 25 listed items. Analysis of data showed good correlation between clinical experience and level of confidence. There was no correlation between clinical experience, level of confidence and performance in a standardized simulation test. Neither was there any correlation between level of confidence and clinical grades or written examination marks., Conclusions: Clinical experience and level of confidence have no predictive value in performance assessments when using standardized anaesthesia simulation scenarios.

The anesthesia computer-controlled patient simulator offers a valuable experiential learning experience for undergraduate medical students. The purpose of this study was to gather students' opinions of the simulator learning experiences and to study and analyze their comments regarding the nature of the learning. All fourth-year medical students were invited to participate in a simulator session during their anesthesia rotation. A satisfaction survey was administered and the qualitative data were analyzed. A total of 145 students completed the questionnaire (100% return rate). Most students (88%) reported the session to be a positive learning experience that provided opportunities for applying their knowledge in a realistic environment. Some students indicated a lack of comfort in the environment but this did not appear to inhibit performance. Student comments highlighted the value of the learning experience and provided insights into the nature of the learning. The computer-controlled patient simulator offers new and challenging opportunities for medical students to apply their knowledge and practice working through an Anesthesia case without endangering patient safety.

Purpose: To determine the correlation between global ratings and criterion-based checklist scores, and inter-rater reliability of global ratings and criterion-based checklist scores, in a performance assessment using an anesthesia simulator., Method: All final-year medical students at the University of Toronto were invited to work through a 15-minute faculty-facilitated scenario using an anesthesia simulator. Students' performances were videotaped and analyzed by two faculty using a 25-point criterion-based checklist and a five-point global rating of competency (1 = clear failure, 5 = superior performance). Correlations between global ratings and checklist scores, as well as specific performance competencies (knowledge, technical skills, and judgment), were determined. Checklist and global scores were converted to percentages; means of the two marks were compared. Mean reliability of a single rater for both checklist and global ratings was determined., Results: The correlation between checklist and global ratings was.74. Mean ratings of both checklist and global scores were low (58.67, SD = 14.96, and 57.08, SD = 24.27, respectively); these differences were not statistically significant. For a single rater, the mean reliability score across rater pairs for checklist scores was.77 (range.58-.93). Mean reliability score across rater pairs for global ratings was.62 (.40-.77). Global ratings correlated more highly with technical skills and judgment (r =.51 and r =.53, respectively) than with knowledge. (r =.24), Conclusion: Inter-rater reliability was higher for checklist scores than for global ratings; however, global ratings demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability and may be useful for competency assessment in performance assessments using simulators.