Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

Simulation Suite vs Virtual Reality: which simulated learning environment better preparesfinal year medical students for emergencies? Dr Cesar Orsini – Project Supervisor UEApswich Hospital Introduction ▪Simulation suite teaching reduces risks to patients, improves learners competence, confidence and patient Virtual Reality should be used as a safety while promoting teamwork and communication skills. Virtual Reality training is used in other professions revision tool for medical students after but has a limited evidence base in medicine. No evidence comparing Sim and VR outcomes for medical students. ▪I ran a cross-over trial ABCDE assessment of simulated Simulation Suite learning to maximise unwell patients in both formats measuring student confidence and performance, and gathered qualitative confidence and performance. feedback on both learning environments. Methods ▪18 students randomised to each arm of the study ▪Confidence self-assessed by simple, user-friendly 1-5 scale ▪Performance assessed using standardised mark-scheme 9 Sim Suite i 9 VR p 18students u s 9 VR W 9 Sim Suite Results Presentation Dissertation ▪Confidence increase, both study arms, T-test=0.000116. st ▪Green confidende increase after Sim 1 , T-test=0.013349 and after VR 2 , T-test=0.002287, statistically significant. ▪Purple confidence increase after VR 1 , T-test=0.0805162 and after Sim 2 , T-test=0.0133491, not significant. ▪Scores increase, both study arms, T-test = 0.001307. ▪Green scores increased Sim 1 , VR 2 , T-test=0.003117, statistically significant. st nd ▪Purple scores increased VR 1 , Sim 2 , T-test=0.090423, not significant. Recommendation ▪ Simulation suite before virtual reality gave better outcomes. Recommended order for learning and revision alongside qualitative feedback suggestions. martin@hamiltonflack.me.uk Implementation of Colorectal Bundle to help reducing surgical site infection. A retrospective single center study in United Kingdom Noor Ul Ain Ninewells Hospital & Medical School Background: Results: • Reduced readmission rate (P =0.004)was observed in the Colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with a high risk of • 102patientswereenrolledin thecontrol groupand103in the experimental group but there were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI). Use of mechanical bowel treatmentgroup. SSI,anastomotic leak, ileus, length of hospital stay and 90-day preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotics before CRS to mortality between the two groups. prevent SSI is controversial. There has been a revival of interest in the use of MBP and antibiotics to reduce SSI in CRS in recentyears. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of MBPand antibiotics in reducingSSIafter CRS Figure1: Graphic representation of number of patients Table 2: outcome of implementation of bowel preparation bundles • Therewas nodifferencebetweenage, gender,and Carlson comorbidityindexforpatients in each group. Method: • A retrospectivesingle centercohortstudywas conductedon consecutiveadult patients undergoingelectivecolorectal resection. • Colorectal bowelpreparationbundleswere developedand implementedin August2019for electiveCRS underenhancedrecoveryprogram (ERAS). • The bundlesweredividedinto groupsdepending uponthesite of surgeryandwhethertherewas a plannedanastomosis.Thesebundlesincludedoral Figure3:Graphic representation of Outcomes antibiotics and carbohydratedrinks for all Table 1:Charachterestics of control and treatment groups Conclusion: colorectal resections.MBPwas addedtothe bundlein patients undergoingleft sided bowel •MBPand antibiotics doesnotreducetherisk of SSI,nor doesit resectionwith anastomosis. Phosphateenema reducetheincidenceof anastomotic leak, ileus, lengthof was givento left sidedcolonic surgerywithout • 46right sided and 57left sided resections were performed in hospital stay and90-daymortality . anastomosis. treatment group as compared to 45right sided and 57left • Reducedreadmissionrate was observedafter implementation sided resections in the control group of colorectal bundle,but this differencein results needsto be • Patient undergoingCRSbeforeAugust2019were testedin studies with larger sample size in future. . includedin controlgroupand patients undergoing References: surgeryafter implementationof bundleswere 1. Bundles Prevent Surgical Site Infections After Colorectal includedin thetreatmentgroup. Surgery: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. • PrimaryOutcomeassessedwas SSI.Secondary C outcomeswere anastomoticleak. ileus, lengthof HTTPs://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11605-017-3465- hospitalstay, readmissionrate and90-day 3 mortality 2. Implementation of an organ space infection prevention B bundle reduces the rate of organ space infection after elective colorectal surgery. Ian Faragher, Nicole Tham , Figure2:CGraphic representation of side of pathology Michael Hong, Stephen Guy, Justin Yeung