Teaching clinical opioid pharmacology with the Human Patient Simulator

Zaki Hassan, MD; Amy DiLorenzo, MA; Paul Sloan, MD

doi:10.5055/jom.2010.0012

Authors

Zaki Hassan, MD
Amy DiLorenzo, MA
Paul Sloan, MD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2010.0012

Keywords:

patient simulation, resident education, opioid pharmacology, opioid pharmacodynamics, Human Patient Simulator, naloxone

Abstract

Objective: Postoperative pain should be aggressively treated to decrease the development of chronic postsurgical pain. There has been an increase in the use of Human Patient Simulator (HPS) for teaching advanced courses in pharmacology to medical students, residents, and nurses. The aim of this educational investigation was to pilot the HPS for the training of medical students and surgical recovery room staff nurses in the pharmacology of opioids for the management of postoperative pain.
Methods: The computerized HPS mannequin is fully monitored with appropriate displays and includes a voice speaker mounted in the head. Medical students and Postanesthesia care unit nurses, led by faculty in the Department of Anesthesiology in small groups of 4-6, participated in a 2- to 3-hour HPS course on the use of opioids for the management of acute postoperative pain. Trainees were asked to treat the acute and severe postoperative pain of a simulated patient. Opioid effects and side effects (such as respiratory depression) were presented on the mannequin in real time to the participants. Side effects of naloxone to reverse opioid depression were presented as a crisis in real time to the participants. Participants completed a 10-item course evaluation using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Results: Twenty-two nurses and nine medical students completed the HPS opioid pharmacology scenario. Almost all participants rated the HPS course very highly and rated every item as either agree or strongly agree. Most participants agreed that the simulator session improved their understanding of opioid pharmacology including opioid side effects and management of opioid complications. Course participants felt most strongly (median, interquartile range) that the simulator session improved their understanding of naloxone pharmacology (5, 0), simulators serve as a useful teaching tool (5, 0), and that they would be pleased to participate in any additional HPS teaching sessions (5, 0).
Conclusions: The HPS provides a novel educational format to teach essential information regarding opioid pharmacology for the management of acute postoperative pain. The HPS provides a realistic format to teach the pharmacology of acute opioid side effects and the management of acute and life-threatening side effects of naloxone therapy.

Author Biographies

Zaki Hassan, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.

Amy DiLorenzo, MA

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.

Paul Sloan, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky.

References

Plymale MA, Witzke DB, Sloan PA, et al.: Cancer survivors as standardized patients: An innovative program integrating cancer patients into structured clinical teaching. J Cancer Ed. 1999; 14: 67-71.

Plymale MA, Sloan PA, Johnson M, et al.: Cancer pain education: The use of a structured clinical instruction module (SCIM) to enhance learning among medical students. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000; 20: 4-11.

Lee AC: Using simulators for medical students and anesthesia resident education. In Henson LC, Lee AC (eds.): Simulators in Anesthesiology Education. New York: Plenum Press, 1998: 23-28.

Euliano TY: Teaching respiratory physiology: Clinical correlation with a human patient simulator. J Clin Monit Comput. 2000; 16(5-6): 465-470.

Hassan Z, Sloan PA: Using a mannequin-based simulator for anesthesia resident training in cardiac anesthesia. Sim Healthcare. 2006; 1: 44-48.

Hassan Z, D’Addario M, Sloan PA: The human patient simulator for training oral and maxillofacial surgery residents in general anesthesia and airway management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 1892-1897.

Hassan ZU, Dorfling J, McLarney JT, et al.: The patient simulator for training of anesthesia residents in the management of one lung ventilation. Sim Healthcare. 2008; 3: 47-52.

Dayal R, Faries PL, Lin SC, et al.: Computer simulation as a component of catheter-based training. J Vasc Surg. 2004; 40(6): 1112-1117.

Wong AK: Full scale computer simulator in anesthesia training and evaluation. Can J Anesth. 2004; 51(5): 455-464.

Good ML: Patient simulation for training basic and advanced clinical skills. Med Educ. 2003; 37(S1): 14-21.

Rosen KR: The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care. 2008; 23: 157-166.

Hassan Z, McLarney JT, Sloan PA: The human patient simulator to enhance learning among medical students in the management of critically ill patients. Anesth Analg. 2008; 106: 3S-88S.

Wheeler DW, Degnan BA, Murray LJ: Retention of drug administration skills after intensive teaching. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63(4): 379-384.

Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, et al.: Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 101: 17-24.

Leykin Y, Pellis T, Ambrosio C: Highlights in postoperative pain treatment. Expert Rev Neurother. 2007; 7: 533-545.

Carpenter JS, Sloan PA, Androykowski MA, et al.: Risk factors for postmastectomy/lumpectomy pain in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Pract. 1999; 7: 66-70.

Lenz H, Sandvik L, Qvigsad E, et al.: A comparison of intravenous oxycodone and intravenous morphine in patient-controlled postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009; 109: 1279-1283.

Brennan F, Carr DB, Cousins M: Pain management: A fundamental human right. Anesth Analg. 2007; 105: 205-221.

Fanelli G, Berti M, Baciarello M: Updating postoperative pain management: From multimodal to context-sensitive treatment. Minerva Anestesiol. 2008; 74: 489-500.

Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, et al.: Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Med Teacher. 2005; 27: 10-28.

Smith NT: Simulation in anesthesia: The merits of large simulators versus small simulators. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2000; 13: 659-665.

Harting B, Hasler S, Abrams R, et al.: Computer-based simulation as a teaching tool for residents treating patients with cancer-related pain crises. Q Manage Health Care. 2008; 17: 192-199.

Murray WB, Good ML, Gravenstein JS, et al.: Learning about new anesthetics using a model driven, full human simulator. J Clin Monit Comput. 2002; 17: 293-300.

Sloan PA, Plymale MA, Johnson M, et al.: Cancer pain management skills among medical students: The development of a cancer pain objective structured clinical examination. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001; 21: 298-306.

Deering SH, Hodor JG, Wylen M, et al.: Additional training with an obstetric simulator improves medical student comfort with basic procedures. Simul Healthcare. 2006; 1: 32-34.

Pliego JF, Wehbe-Janek H, Rajab MH, et al.: OB/GYN boot camp using high-fidelity human simulators: Enhancing residents’ perceived competency, confidence in taking a leadership role, and stress hardiness. Simul Healthcare. 2008; 3: 82-89.

Roberson B: An obstetric simulation experience in an under-graduate nursing curriculum. Nurse Educ. 2006; 31: 74-78.

Girzadas DV Jr, Clay L, Caris J, et al.: High fidelity simulation can discriminate between novice and experienced residents when assessing competency in patient care. Med Teacher. 2007; 29: 452-456.