Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Does clinical experience influence the effects of team simulation training in stroke thrombolysis? A prospective
Soffien Chadli Ajmi1,2, Martin Kurz3,4, Thomas Werner Lindner5,6
1Department of Neurology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway soffiena@yahoo.com.
Objectives:
After introducing a team simulation training programme at our hospital, we saw a reduction in door-to-needle times (DNT) for stroke thrombolysis but persisting variability prompting further investigation. Our objective is to examine this gap through assessing: (1) whether there is an association between DNT and the clinical experience of neurology registrars and (2) whether experience influences the benefits from attending simulation.
Design:
Prospective cohort study.
Setting And Participants:
Patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis between January 2016 and 2020 at a Norwegian stroke centre.
Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures:
Using DNT and prior intravenous thrombolysis administrations (case-based definition of clinical experience) as continuous variables, a mixed effects linear regression model was performed to examine the association between clinical experience, DNT and simulation attendance. For dichotomised analyses, neurology registrars with 15 or more prior treatments were defined as experienced.
Results:
A total of 532 patients treated by 36 neurology registrars from January 2016 to 2020 were included. There was a linear association between clinical experience and DNT (test for non-linearity p=0.479). Each prior intravenous thrombolysis administration was associated with a significant 1.1% decrease in DNT in the adjusted analysis (ΔDNT -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -0.0%; p=0.048). The interaction between effects of clinical experience and simulation on DNT was not statistically significant (p=0.150). In the dichotomised analysis, experienced registrars had similar gains from attending simulation sessions (mean DNT from 18.5 min to 13.5 min) compared with less experienced registrars (mean DNT from 22.4 min to 17.4 min).
Conclusions:
Less experienced registrars had longer DNT in stroke thrombolysis. Attending team simulation training was associated with similar improvements for experienced and inexperienced neurology registrars. We suggest a focus on high-quality onboarding programmes to close the experience-related quality gap. Our findings suggest that both inexperienced and experienced neurology registrars might benefit from team simulation training for stroke thrombolysis.
