A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: Network is unreachable

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Current State of Simulation in Interventional Cardiology Training: Results of a SCAI Survey. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Interventional cardiology (IC) is well suited to simulation education, with a wide spectrum of digital and physical models for procedural training. Despite this, standardization, validation, and access to simulation training remains inconsistent in the United States and globally. Ten years have elapsed since the last Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) expert consensus statement on simulation in IC, which included a survey of US program directors. In this document, we report the results of a follow-up survey with the goal of broadening polling to all career stages, both in the US and internationally.

Methods: A web-based 19-item survey with embedded subquestions was sent out via email solicitation to SCAI members from September 2023 to December 2023.

Results: In total, 420 responses were collected, with a 15% response rate. Nearly 70% of respondents were from the US. There was equal distribution in responses for all stages of training, with most respondents performing coronary procedures. Two-thirds had previous exposure to simulation training with most using digital simulators and reporting only 1 to 2 days of exposure for each type or procedure. A majority (71%) felt that they had insufficient simulation training; most felt that simulation fidelity was average. The biggest barrier to simulation training was a lack of access.

Conclusions: Despite efforts to develop simulation in IC training, there remain gaps in accessibility, exposure, and curricula. Professional organizations, industry, and educational governing bodies must collaborate on specific, actionable strategies to enhance access to high-fidelity IC simulation training globally.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11993868PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2025.102566DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

simulation training
24
simulation
10
training
9
interventional cardiology
8
current state
4
state simulation
4
simulation interventional
4
cardiology training
4
training scai
4
survey
4

Similar Publications