Strother, Christopher

AbstractValue‐based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and the economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often‐disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost‐effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators.At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference “Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes,” our breakout session critically evaluated the cost‐benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost–benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is used to teach residents. However, few studies have evaluated its clinical impact. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of an SBME session on pediatric interns’ clinical procedural success. METHODS: This randomized trial was conducted at 10 academic medical centers. Interns were surveyed on infant lumbar puncture (ILP) and child intravenous line placement (CIV) knowledge and watched audiovisual expert modeling of both procedures. Participants were randomized to SBME mastery learning for ILP or CIV and for 6 succeeding months reported clinical performance for both procedures. ILP success was defined as obtaining a sample on the first attempt with <1000 red blood cells per high-power field or fluid described as clear. CIV success was defined as placement of a functioning catheter on the first try. Each group served as the control group for the procedure for which they did not receive the intervention. RESULTS: Two-hundred interns participated (104 in the ILP group and 96 in the CIV group). Together, they reported 409 procedures. ILP success rates were 34% (31 of 91) for interns who received ILP mastery learning and 34% (25 of 73) for controls (difference: 0.2% [95% confidence interval: –0.1 to 0.1]). The CIV success rate was 54% (62 of 115) for interns who received CIV mastery learning compared with 50% (58 of 115) for controls (difference: 3% [95% confidence interval: –10 to 17]). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a single SBME mastery learning session was insufficient to affect pediatric interns’ subsequent procedural success.