Why Accreditation? Simulation Centre / Program Identify strengths and weaknesses Identify quality improvement projects Use report to garner support and possible increased resources from your institution Contributes to identity, sense of team and pride

Pre-Application Process Review the application Assign Roles How to collect data Evaluation component of educational programs (faculty, learners, staff, equipment) Which educational activities to highlight Partners

Plan & Prepare the Application Data collection Decide on who will be involved and the scope of their involvement Establish timelines Writers Editors Survey Visit

Session Form Needs Assessment Level of learners Objectives Space Equipment Evaluation Scholarly Component

Name (please print name) Internal Medicine Residents – Central Line Insertion SIGN-IN February 5th, 2013 08H00 – 12H00 Name (please print name) Signature INSTRUCTORS/STAFF: 1. Dr. A 2. Dr. B RESIDENTS: 1. A. Smith 2. T. Charbonneau

Clerkship – General Surgery SIGN-IN March 6th, 2013 13H00 – 17H00 Name (please print name) Signature INSTRUCTORS/STAFF: 1. Dr. C 2. STUDENTS: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6.

NUR 535 – Interview Skills SIGN-IN February 15th, 2013 08H00 – 16H00 Name (please print name) Signature INSTRUCTORS/STAFF: 1. M. Smith 2. 3. PARTICIPANTS: 1. 4. 5. 6.

# Instructors / Faculty / Organizers DATE PROGRAM COURSE/EVENT ACS CODE INSTRUCTOR NAME HOURS PROCEDURES #SP # LEARNER VISITS # Instructors / Faculty / Organizers # of Non-Learners (Candidates, Sales Reps, Meetings) 17-JAN-2013 CPD Difficult Airway Workshop I Dr. D 4.25 Hifi 4 2 5-FEB-2013 Residents Internal Med – Central Line Insertion R Dr. A 5 15-FEB-2013 Nursing – Undergraduate NUR 535 –Interview Skills N M. Smith 8 SP scenarios 6 1 6-MAR-2013 Medical Students Core Clerkship – General Surgery M Dr. C Technical skills

Learner Groups Served by the AEI Table for Criterion 1.1 Learner Groups Served by the AEI What is the Percentage of Use for Each Learner Group Over the Last 3 Years? Practicing Surgeons Yes □ No 0.58% Physicians 3.69% Residents/Surgery Residents 26.10% Medical Students 32% Allied Health Professionals 13% Nurses 17.42% Others(Please list): Interdisciplinary 5.37% Industry and Special Events 1.85%

Table 1   Number of Activities Number of Learners Percentage of Learners Learner Types Physicians (CME activities) 54 1005 10.05% Residents 481 2989 29.90% Allied Health Professionals 137 1667 16.68% Medical Students 397 571 5.71% Nursing 220 1890 18.91% Others 161 1874 18.75% Totals 1450 9996 100.00%

Supporting Documentation Staffing Faculty Educational Resources Financial Resources Evaluation: educational content, learners, faculty, program

Pediatric Emergency - CRM Interdisciplinary EVALUATION FORM March 5th, 2013 Agree Completely Agree Uncertain Disagree Completely The objectives for this session were clear to me. The scenarios were realistic. The stations were well set up. The simulators were useful for practicing. During the debriefing session, I received clear, concise and pertinent information. The debriefing session was conducted with professionalism, was respectful for the participant and constructive. The content presented was relevant to my emergency practice. I can, now or in the nearest future, use correctly what I learned today. I am better prepared to address a similar scenario in the ER Overall, this was a positive experience

CPD – Ultrasound Course March 14th, 2013 EVALUATION FORM Please circle the appropriate response: Agree Completely Agree Uncertain Disagree Completely The objectives of the session were made clear 5 4 3 2 1 The online videos were valuable There was enough time for questions The instructors were dynamic and knowledgeable I would recommend this course to my colleagues I am now comfortable performing this procedure on patients after taking this course I had enough time to practice

TASK TRAINERS 1.The task-trainers for lumbar puncture were realistic Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree N/A 1.The task-trainers for lumbar puncture were realistic 2. The task-trainers for knee arthrocentesis were realistic 3. The task-trainers for shoulder arthrocentesis were realistic 4. The staff from the Medical were available and helpful 5. The facilities at the Medical were appropriate for this session

Station 1: Radiation Scenario Station 2: Cardiac Arrest PE Station 2: Cardiac Arrest PE Station 2: Cardiac Arrest PE Station 2: Cardiac Arrest PE Station 2: Cardiac Arrest PE Station 2: Cardiac Medical Simulation Centre Pulmonary Embolism Sim Day - EVALUATION March 21st, 2012 Station 1: Radiation Scenario Agree Completely Agree Uncertain Disagree Completely The scenario was interesting and realistic. 5 4 3 2 1 The role of the standardized patient enhanced the learning experience. During the debriefing session, I received clear, concise and pertinent information. The debriefing session was conducted with professionalism, was respectful for the participant and constructive. The content presented was relevant to my emergency practice. I can, now or in the nearest future, use correctly what I learned today. Station 2 : Cardiac Arrest Agree Completely Agree Uncertain Disagree Completely The scenario was interesting and realistic. 5 4 3 2 1 During the debriefing session, I received clear, concise and pertinent information. The debriefing session was conducted with professionalism, was respectful for the participant and constructive. The content presented was relevant to my emergency practice. I can, now or in the nearest future, use correctly what I learned today.

Survey Visit Meeting with Stakeholders Meeting with Faculty (Multidisciplinary) Meeting with Learners (Multidisciplinary)

Q & A