Simulation-based medical education (SBME) has traditionally been conducted as off-site simulation in simulation centres. Some hospital departments also provide off-site simulation using in-house training room(s) set up for simulation away from the clinical setting, and these activities are called in-house training. In-house training facilities can be part of hospital departments and resemble to some extent simulation centres but often have less technical equipment. In situ simulation, introduced over the past decade, mainly comprises of team-based activities and occurs in patient care units with healthcare professionals in their own working environment. Thus, this intentional blend of simulation and real working environments means that in situ simulation brings simulation to the real working environment and provides training where people work. In situ simulation can be either announced or unannounced, the latter also known as a drill. This article presents and discusses the design of SBME and the advantage and disadvantage of the different simulation settings, such as training in simulation-centres, in-house simulations in hospital departments, announced or unannounced in situ simulations. Non-randomised studies argue that in situ simulation is more effective for educational purposes than other types of simulation settings. Conversely, the few comparison studies that exist, either randomised or retrospective, show that choice of setting does not seem to influence individual or team learning. However, hospital department-based simulations, such as in-house simulation and in situ simulation, lead to a gain in organisational learning. To our knowledge no studies have compared announced and unannounced in situ simulation. The literature suggests some improved organisational learning from unannounced in situ simulation; however, unannounced in situ simulation was also found to be challenging to plan and conduct, and more stressful among participants. The importance of setting, context and fidelity are discussed. Based on the current limited research we suggest that choice of setting for simulations does not seem to influence individual and team learning. Department-based local simulation, such as simulation in-house and especially in situ simulation, leads to gains in organisational learning. The overall objectives of simulation-based education and factors such as feasibility can help determine choice of simulation setting.

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is very operator dependent and has a long learning curve. Simulation-based training might shorten the learning curve, and an assessment tool with solid validity evidence could ensure basic competency before unsupervised performance.A total of 16 respiratory physicians, without EBUS experience, were randomised to either virtual-reality simulator training or traditional apprenticeship training on patients, and then each physician performed EBUS-TBNA procedures on three patients. Three blinded, independent assessor assessed the video recordings of the procedures using a newly developed EBUS assessment tool (EBUSAT).The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α=0.95); the generalisability coefficient was good (0.86), and the tool had discriminatory ability (p<0.001). Procedures performed by simulator-trained novices were rated higher than procedures performed by apprenticeship-trained novices: mean±sdare 24.2±7.9 points and 20.2±9.4 points, respectively; p=0.006. A pass/fail standard of 28.9 points was established using the contrasting groups method, resulting in 16 (67%) and 20 (83%) procedures performed by simulator-trained novices and apprenticeship-trained novices failing the test, respectively; p<0.001.The endobronchial ultrasound assessment tool could be used to provide reliable and valid assessment of competence in EBUS-TBNA, and act as an aid in certification. Virtual-reality simulator training was shown to be more effective than traditional apprenticeship training.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background and study aims: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) guided by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is important in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Training standards and implementation strategies of this technique are currently under discussion. The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of a newly developed EUS Assessment Tool (EUSAT) designed to measure competence in EUS – FNA for mediastinal staging of NSCLC. Patients and methods: A total of 30 patients with proven or suspected NSCLC underwent EUS – FNA for mediastinal staging by three trainees and three experienced physicians. Their performances were assessed prospectively by three experts in EUS under direct observation and again 2 months later in a blinded fashion using digital video-recordings. Based on the assessments, intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, and construct validity were explored. Results: The intra-rater reliability was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.80), but comparison of results based on direct observations and blinded video-recordings indicated a significant bias favoring consultants (P = 0.022). Inter-rater reliability was very good (Cronbach’s α = 0.93). However, one rater assessing five procedures or two raters each assessing four procedures were necessary to secure a generalizability coefficient of 0.80. The assessment tool demonstrated construct validity by discriminating between trainees and experienced physicians (P = 0.034). Conclusions: Competency in mediastinal staging of NSCLC using EUS and EUS – FNA can be assessed in a reliable and valid way using the EUSAT assessment tool. Measuring and defining competency and training requirements could improve EUS quality and benefit patient care.

Summary Statement: Simulation-based training using virtual reality head-mounted displays (VR-HMD) is increasingly being used within the field of medical education. This article systematically reviews and appraises the quality of the literature on the use of VR-HMDs in medical education. A search in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO was carried out. Studies were screened according to predefined exclusion criteria, and quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. In total, 41 articles were included and thematically divided into 5 groups: anatomy, procedural skills, surgical procedures, communication skills, and clinical decision making. Participants highly appreciated using VR-HMD and rated it better than most other training methods. Virtual reality head-mounted display outperformed traditional methods of learning surgical procedures. Although VR-HMD showed promising results when learning anatomy, it was not considered better than other available study materials. No conclusive findings could be synthesized regarding the remaining 3 groups.

The contrasting groups’ standard setting method is commonly used for consequences analysis in validity studies for performance in medicine and surgery. The method identifies a pass/fail cut-off score, from which it is possible to determine false positives and false negatives based on observed numbers in each group. Since groups in validity studies are often small, e.g., due to a limited number of experts, these analyses are sensitive to outliers on the normal distribution curve. We propose that these shortcomings can be addressed in a simple manner using the cumulative distribution function. We demonstrate considerable absolute differences between the observed false positives/negatives and the theoretical false positives/negatives. In addition, several important examples are given. We propose that a better reporting strategy is to report theoretical false positives and false negatives together with the observed false positives and negatives, and we have developed an Excel sheet to facilitate such calculations. Not relevant.