Team performance training for medical students: Low vs high fidelity simulation

Nicolaides M., Theodorou E., Emin E. I., Theodoulou I., Andersen N., Lymperopoulos N., ...More

ANNALS OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, vol.55, pp.308-315, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 55
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.05.042
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.308-315
  • Keywords: Education and training, Trauma management, Accident and emergency medicine, Medical education and training, NONTECHNICAL SKILLS, TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE, SURGEONS, RESUSCITATION, VALIDITY, FEEDBACK, STRESS, SAFETY, EXPERT, IMPACT
  • Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University Affiliated: Yes


Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate a simulation -based team performance course for medical students and compare its low- and high-fidelity components. Study design: This is a prospective crossover observational study. Groups participated in one low- and one high- fidelity session twice. Low -fidelity scenarios included management of an emergency case on a simulated -patient, whereas high-fidelity scenarios constituted of multiple -trauma cases where simulated -patients wore a hyper - realistic suit. Team performance was assessed objectively, using the TEAMTM tool, and subjectively using ques- tionnaires. Questionnaires were also used to assess presence levels, stress levels and evaluate the course. Results: Participants? team performance was higher in the low -fidelity intervention as assessed by the TEAMTM tool. An overall mean increase in self -assessed confidence towards non -technical skills attitudes was noted after the course, however there was no difference in self -assessed performance between the two interventions. Both reported mean stress and presence levels were higher for the high-fidelity module. Evaluation scores for all individual items of the questionnaire were ?4.60 in both NTS modules. Students have assessed the high-fidelity module higher (4.88 out of 5, SD = 0.29) compared to low -fidelity module (4.74 out of 5, SD = 0.67). Conclusions: Both the low- and high-fidelity interventions demonstrated an improvement in team performance of the attending medical students. The high-fidelity intervention was more realistic, yet more stressful. Furthermore, it proved to be superior in harvesting leadership, teamwork and task management skills. Both modules were evaluated highly by the students, however, future research should address retention of the taught skills and adaptability of such interventions.