• Pediatric trauma and resuscitations: high-stakes, low-frequency, quality of care difficult to assess • There are few data exploring the relationship of simulation performance to performance on real patients • The validity of the assessment of simulated performance as a surrogate for clinical performance needs further investigation Background • To compare time to performance of interventions in simulated to real patient cases • n= 22 real patient cases and 11 simulated cases • No difference in TTI between simulated and clinical cases for obtain SAMPLE history, circulation assessment, airway assessment, cardiorespiratory/O 2 monitors placed, verbalize vital signs, O 2 administration, order consults/imaging • Simulation faster for IV placement and estimating/obtaining patient weight • Insufficient data for check dextrose, apply defibrillator pads, discharge defibrillator, initiate airway RSI, insert endotracheal tube • Design: Prospective comparative study • Setting: Level 1 pediatric emergency department • Inclusion: Real (R): level 1 & 2 triage patients ≤18 y/o Simulated (S): in-situ simulated patients both in and outside of Yale • Collection period: June 2013-present • Subjects: Interdisciplinary pediatric emergency teams • Assessments: Time-to-intervention (TTI) = elapsed time from patient arrival (t 0 ) to performance of intervention • Interventions assessed: obtain SAMPLE history, circulation assessment, airway assessment, cardiorespiratory/O 2 monitors placed, verbalize vital signs, place IV, estimate/obtain patient weight, O 2 administration, order consults/imaging, check dextrose, apply defibrillator pads, discharge defibrillator, initiate airway RSI, insert endotracheal tube Lucas Butler, Anup Agarwal MBBS, Jaewon Jang PhDc, Marc Auerbach MD Yale School of Medicine Yale-New Haven Children’s Hospital, Pediatric Emergency Medicine Department Objective Methods Conclusions Assessment Tool Future Directions Acknowledgements • Performance in simulation is similar to real patient performance • TTI’s measured using novel iCODA checklist-stop watch application developed in collaboration with Studiocode™ Limitations Results • Small sample size • Performance measured solely via TTI, without qualitative assessment of performance • Confounding variables not measured—team size and composition, case type • These data support simulation performance assessment as surrogate for real patient performance • Use of video review to improve data collection accuracy • Inclusion of qualitative data collection • Funding Source: Vernon W. Lippard, M.D. Medical Student Research Fellowship, Yale University School of Medicine • We would like to thank Mike Anzalone of Studiocode™ for development and aid with the iCODA application • We would like to thank Dr. John Forrest & associates at the YSM Office of Student Research • For questions, please contact [email protected]