Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Neurocritical Care 3/2014

01-12-2014 | Original Article

Simulation-Based Training in Brain Death Determination

Authors: Benjamin J. MacDougall, Jennifer D. Robinson, Liana Kappus, Stephanie N. Sudikoff, David M. Greer

Published in: Neurocritical Care | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite straightforward guidelines on brain death determination by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), substantial practice variability exists internationally, between states, and among institutions. We created a simulation-based training course on proper determination based on the AAN practice parameters to address and assess knowledge and practice gaps at our institution.

Methods

Our intervention consisted of a didactic course and a simulation exercise, and was bookended by before and after multiple-choice tests. The 40-min didactic course, including a video demonstration, covered all aspects of the brain death examination. Simulation sessions utilized a SimMan 3G manikin and involved a complete examination, including an apnea test. Possible confounders and signs incompatible with brain death were embedded throughout. Facilitators evaluated performance with a 26-point checklist based on the most recent AAN guidelines. A senior neurologist conducted all aspects of the course, including the didactic session, simulation, and debriefing session.

Results

Ninety physicians from multiple specialties have participated in the didactic session, 38 of whom have completed the simulation. Pre-test scores were poor (41.4 %), with attendings scoring higher than residents (46.6 vs. 40.4 %, p = 0.07), and neurologists and neurosurgeons significantly outperforming other specialists (53.9 vs. 38.9 %, p = 0.003). Post-test scores (73.3 %) were notably higher than pre-test scores (45.4 %). Participant feedback has been uniformly positive.

Conclusion

Baseline knowledge of brain death determination among providers was low but improved greatly after the course. Our intervention represents an effective model that can be replicated at other institutions to train clinicians in the determination of brain death according to evidence-based guidelines.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wijdicks EFM, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2010;74:1911–8.PubMedCrossRef Wijdicks EFM, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2010;74:1911–8.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Greer DM, Varelas PN, Haque S, Wijdicks EF. Variability of brain death determination guidelines in leading U.S. neurologic institutions. Neurology. 2008;70:284–9.PubMedCrossRef Greer DM, Varelas PN, Haque S, Wijdicks EF. Variability of brain death determination guidelines in leading U.S. neurologic institutions. Neurology. 2008;70:284–9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wang M, Wallace P, Gruen JP. Brain death documentation: analysis and issues. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:731–6.PubMed Wang M, Wallace P, Gruen JP. Brain death documentation: analysis and issues. Neurosurgery. 2002;51:731–6.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Shappell CN, Frank JI, Husari K, Sanchez M, Goldenberg F, Ardelt A. Practice variability in brain death determination: a call to action. Neurology. 2013;81:2009–14.PubMedCrossRef Shappell CN, Frank JI, Husari K, Sanchez M, Goldenberg F, Ardelt A. Practice variability in brain death determination: a call to action. Neurology. 2013;81:2009–14.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86:706–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med. 2011;86:706–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Zigmont JJ, Kappus L, Sudikoff S. The 3D model of debriefing: defusing, discovering, and deepening. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35:52–8.PubMedCrossRef Zigmont JJ, Kappus L, Sudikoff S. The 3D model of debriefing: defusing, discovering, and deepening. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35:52–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dismukes RK, Gaba DM, Howard SK. So many roads: facilitated debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:23–5.PubMedCrossRef Dismukes RK, Gaba DM, Howard SK. So many roads: facilitated debriefing in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:23–5.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:115–25.PubMedCrossRef Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:115–25.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Simulation-Based Training in Brain Death Determination
Authors
Benjamin J. MacDougall
Jennifer D. Robinson
Liana Kappus
Stephanie N. Sudikoff
David M. Greer
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Neurocritical Care / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1541-6933
Electronic ISSN: 1556-0961
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-014-9975-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Neurocritical Care 3/2014 Go to the issue