Marcos Molina, MD, Brent Bauman, MD, Alex L Otto, BA, Co Duong, BS, Jung Nam, BS, Jayme Lee, BS, Amy O’Neil, MD, James Harmon, MD, PhD, Robert Acton, MD, Mojca Konia, MD, PhD. University of Minnesota
Introduction: To provide evidence for the face and content validity of a hybrid active-shooter team training simulation and the impact of a hybrid curricular model on learner’s engagement and performance. The following study was conducted because hospitals are increasingly threatened by active-shooter incidents, and no active and noticeable training is currently available to train hospital staff members.
Methods: Thirty-five volunteers (medical students, residents and other allied health providers) from the University of Minnesota affiliated medical centers were randomly selected and divided into control and experimental groups. The control group (N=14) was given a traditional lecture-style presentation. The experimental group (N=21) participated in the hybrid curriculum which included augmented reality, kinesthetic simulation, and debriefing components. Following both curriculum styles, NASA Task Load Index (TLX) surveys were completed by each group member. A final active shooter simulation experience was presented and evaluated by active-shooter trained raters using a checklist of critical actions from the Department of Defense. A post-simulation NASA TLX survey and Post-test were provided. To assess face and content validation of a hybrid team-training simulation exercise to prepare healthcare personnel in the event of a hospital-related active-shooter crisis, a 5-point Likert-scale survey determined the realism, utility, and applicability of this type of training while engagement and performance during the simulation were measured using a NASA-TLX survey and contrasted with the rater's evaluation.
Results: Pre-simulation NASA TLX indexes were higher for the experimental (54.87 ± 3.393; p=0.0029) vs. control groups (38.29 ± 3.765). Post-simulation NASA TLX indexes remained stable (0.1108 ± 3.271; p=0.0079) vs, decreased in the control group (-15.17 ± 4.104). Experimental group was more engaged (93.75 ± 6.250%; p=0.001), had faster decision-making (4.750 ± 0.2500; p=0.001), and higher survivability (4.500 ± 0.2887; p=0.002) vs. the control group (37.50 ± 7.217%) (2.750 ± 0.2500) (3.000 ± 0.0).
Conclusion: Our study provided evidence to support the face and content validation of an active-shooter simulation team training curriculum as a useful adjunct to health care institutional safety planning. We demonstrated that this type of training requires an optimal level of cognitive activation to increases learner’s engagement and performance. We concluded that the hybrid design of our curriculum was successful in delivering these optimal levels of cognitive stimuli by producing engaging team training simulation experience capable of motivating our learners to acquire the tactical skills and life-preserving behaviors consistent with better survival opportunities during a hospital related active-shooter crisis.
Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.
Abstract ID: 87117
Program Number: P328
Presentation Session: iPoster Session (Non CME)
Presentation Type: Poster