Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 472

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department

Open access
Patterson, Mary D, Geis, Gary Lee, Falcone, Richard A, LeMaster, Thomas, Wears, Robert L·2013·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Objective: Implement and demonstrate feasibility of in situ simulations to identify latent safety threats (LSTs) at a higher rate than lab-based training, and reinforce teamwork training in a paediatric emergency department (ED). Methods: Multidisciplinary healthcare providers responded to critical simulated patients in an urban ED during all shifts. Unannounced in situ simulations were limited to 10 min of simulation and 10 min of debriefing, and were video recorded. A standardised debriefing template was used to assess LSTs. The primary outcome measure was the number and type of LSTs identified during the simulations. Secondary measures included: participants’ assessment of impact on patient care and value to participants. Blinded video review using a modified Anaesthetists Non-Technical Skills scale was used to assess team behaviours. Results: 218 healthcare providers responded to 90 in situ simulations conducted over 1 year. A total of 73 LSTs were identified; a rate of one every 1.2 simulations performed. In situ simulations were cancelled at a rate of 28% initially, but the cancellation rate decreased as training matured. Examples of threats identified include malfunctioning equipment and knowledge gaps concerning role responsibilities. 78% of participants rated the simulations as extremely valuable or valuable, while only 5% rated the simulation as having little or no value. Of those responding to a postsimulation survey, 77% reported little or no clinical impact. Video recordings did not indicate changes in non-technical skills during this time. Conclusions: In situ simulation is a practical method for the detection of LSTs and to reinforce team training behaviours. Embedding in situ simulation as a routine expectation positively affected operations and the safety climate in a high risk clinical setting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000942

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 472

Metadata

Authors
Patterson, M. D., Geis, G. L., Falcone, R. A., LeMaster, T., & Wears, R. L.
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-12-20
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
468-477
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2110317260
Cited by
472
References
23
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000942
The paper
Patterson, M. D., Geis, G. L., Falcone, R. A., LeMaster, T., & Wears, R. L. (2013). In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000942

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.