Bad Day Canada, Headquatered, Edmonton, AB (2026)

09/02/2026

We know you’ve been thinking about PMTR.

So we removed the biggest obstacle.

Your mom said you can go.

A couple spots remain for October 2–4, 2026.

Come learn some stuff. Make your mom proud.

Check the link in Bio!
🤕

08/22/2026

The debrief begins before anyone enters the scenario.

A facilitator should tell learners what will happen after the exercise: they will be asked what they noticed, the team will reconstruct what occurred, decisions will be explored, and the discussion will finish with practical changes for future work.

Without that expectation, the debrief can feel like an unexpected performance review.

During PMTR Advanced Scenario 1, Tom was a 25-year-old simulated patient experiencing prolonged seizure activity. Patient contact occurred at 09:32; packaging was completed at 09:50; the full extrication concluded at 10:21.

The AAR captured two very different observations.

First, attention shifted toward packaging and a decrease in oxygen saturation was not immediately identified.

Second, coordination through the tight stairs was excellent; the litter team used precise haul timing and synchronized breathing to manage a difficult transition.

A weak debrief might focus only on the missed monitoring and ask who should have noticed it. A structured debrief can do more: establish what each participant saw, rebuild the timeline, examine how workload moved attention, preserve what worked, and identify how continuous monitoring will be protected next time.

A systematic review of simulation debriefing found that structured debriefing supported learning, although no single method was clearly superior. The evidence comes from nursing education rather than rescue training; the operational lesson is still useful. Structure matters because it keeps the conversation from becoming either a lecture or a prosecution.

Our in-house AI-powered after-action learning process supports that structure: it preserves observations, timelines, decision points, strengths, and improvement actions. It helps the facilitator organize the learning; it does not replace the human conversation.

Before the scenario starts, learners should know that their reasoning will be explored with curiosity and accountability.

Do your participants understand how the debrief will work before they enter the exercise?

Set the terms for reflection before you ask people to be honest.

Reference

Lee, J., Lee, H., Kim, S., Choi, M., Ko, I. S., Bae, J., & Kim, S. H. (2020). Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 87, 104345.

08/20/2026

If learners do not understand their roles, the scenario may be testing rule interpretation instead of teamwork.

A facilitator prebrief should answer some basic questions before the clock starts:

Who is participating? Who is observing? Are there embedded helpers? How will the facilitator provide information? Who can speak for the patient or simulated environment? What actions are participants expected to verbalize?

This is not unnecessary hand holding. These are the rules of the exercise.

Without them, learners spend attention trying to understand what authority they have, which people are part of the scenario, and whether a facilitator’s silence means “no,” “not yet,” or “you should have asked differently.”

The clinical and rescue problem should create the workload; unclear role expectations should not.

During the PMTR Advanced trailer-entrapment scenario, the simulated patient was a 55-year-old man trapped for more than six hours with suspected crush syndrome. At 17:10, the team used a tactical pause to establish tie backs before lifting the crush injury from the patient. Extrication began at 17:19; the patient then deteriorated into ventricular fibrillation, with ROSC achieved at 17:34.

The AAR rated communication between rescue and medical teams as excellent. It also found that tripod positioning interfered with the EMS workspace causing delays in patient care.

Both observations matter: good coordination can exist while role boundaries, physical access, or decision authority still need refinement.

A major review of healthcare teamwork found that safe, high-quality care depends on reliable coordination within and across professional boundaries. That evidence comes from healthcare settings rather than technical rescue; however, it supports a practical training principle: teams perform better when responsibilities, communication pathways, and shared objectives are understood.

Before your next scenario, define more than job titles. Clarify who owns patient monitoring, who controls movement, who can request a pause, and how changes will cross between medical and rescue functions.

Our AI-powered after-action learning process helps compare the intended structure with what actually occurred: who communicated, where work became siloed, and which responsibilities were left unowned.

Could every learner explain their role, authority, and communication pathway before your scenario begins?

Clear roles divide the workload; shared understanding keeps the team together.

Reference

Rosen, M. A., DiazGranados, D., Dietz, A. S., Benishek, L. E., Thompson, D., Pronovost, P. J., & Weaver, S. J. (2018). Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. American Psychologist, 73(4), 433–450.

08/19/2026

A mannequin should not become the hardest part of the scenario.

Simulation asks learners to enter a world that is partly real and partly constructed.

The equipment may be genuine. The decisions matter. The workload can feel very real. Yet the patient may not breathe, speak, deteriorate, or respond to treatment in the way a human patient would.

That is why facilitators need a fiction contract.

Before the scenario begins, participants should understand the rules of engagement: what the mannequin can do, what it cannot reproduce, how clinical findings will be provided, and what learners should verbalize when the simulated world reaches its limits.

During the PMTR Advanced H₂S scenario, Jack was a 25-year-old simulated patient in ventricular fibrillation. ROSC was achieved at 15:16 following three rounds of CPR and two defibrillations. The team then managed airway care, hypotension, a platform lift, and a vertical descent.

There was already enough meaningful pressure.

The AAR later identified a question about whether the BVM model allowed blow-by oxygenation. That question deserved technical review; it did not deserve to become a hidden test of whether learners could guess how the equipment was supposed to behave.

Current simulation standards recommend orienting learners to the simulation modality and establishing clear ground rules before the exercise. This evidence comes from healthcare simulation rather than technical rescue, but the reasoning fits: clearer expectations reduce avoidable cognitive load and leave more capacity for assessment, communication, teamwork, and patient care.

A fiction contract does not make the exercise easier. It separates useful uncertainty from artificial confusion.

Our in-house AI-powered after-action learning system also helps capture these moments: was the problem the team’s decision, the equipment, or the way the simulated world had been explained?

Before your next scenario, tell learners what they can trust, what they must imagine, and how to speak up when the two stop matching.

Does your prebrief explain the limits of the simulation clearly enough for learners to remain focused on the patient?

Explain the make-believe; preserve the challenge.

Reference

INACSL Standards Committee, McDermott, D. S., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., & Meakim, C. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice™ prebriefing: Preparation and briefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 9–13.

08/18/2026

Psychological safety does not lower the standard. It gives the debrief access to what actually happened.

Before a difficult simulation, learners need to hear the facilitator’s basic assumption clearly: everyone in the room is capable, wants to do well, and is there to improve.

That statement matters because scenarios create professional vulnerability. People make decisions in front of instructors and peers; afterward, they may be asked to explain choices that did not work as intended.

Without a clear prebrief, the safest response can feel like self-protection: defend the decision, stay quiet about uncertainty, or blame the limitations of the scenario.

None of that leaves much room for learning.

During the PMTR Advanced impalement scenario, Steve was a simulated patient with suspected internal hemorrhage following a fall onto rebar. The team established patient contact at 14:54; the impalement was cut at 15:02.

The AAR later identified a significant communication gap: the cut-and-move occurred without fully notifying the patient or synchronizing with the medical team. That observation became a practical recommendation for future scenarios: complete an “Update and Plan” huddle before critical interventions.

That is what psychological safety should produce. Not comfort. Not lowered expectations. Honest information that can improve the system.

Rudolph and colleagues described the prebrief as creating a safe container for learning through clear expectations, a fiction contract, attention to logistics, and demonstrated respect for learners. Their work comes from healthcare simulation and does not directly prove improved technical-rescue outcomes; it offers a strong framework for helping people remain engaged while discussing mistakes, uncertainty, and imperfect simulation.

Our AI-powered after-action learning process supports the same goal: capture what participants noticed, preserve the reasoning behind decisions, and convert the conversation into improvement actions.

When people are afraid of the debrief, they manage appearances. When they trust the process, they can examine performance.

What does your prebrief say that makes it safe for a learner to admit, “We were no longer working from the same plan”?

Psychological safety is not freedom from accountability; it is what makes meaningful accountability possible.

Reference

Rudolph, J. W., Raemer, D. B., & Simon, R. (2014). Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the presimulation briefing. Simulation in Healthcare, 9(6), 339–349.

08/04/2026

The Training Pre Brief

The clinical problem should be uncertain. The rules of the exercise should not be.

This prebrief is not the operational briefing a rescue team leader gives at an incident. It is the conversation facilitators have with learners before a simulation begins.

Its purpose is simple: explain the world everyone is about to enter.

What are the rules of engagement? What does the teaching team expect? How will information be provided? What can the mannequin actually do? Which parts of the environment are real, and which require some shared make believe?

I think our industry sometimes confuses withholding those answers with creating realism.

During the PMTR Advanced H2S scenario, “Jack” was a 25-year-old simulated patient in ventricular fibrillation. The team achieved ROSC at 15:16, managed the airway and hypotension, and completed a two phase extrication. The scenario already contained task saturation, environmental constraints, competing priorities, and changing patient physiology.

It did not need hidden facilitator expectations to make it stressful.

The AAR later identified a question about whether the BVM model allowed blow by oxygenation. That is exactly the kind of simulation limitation that must be understood openly. Learners should be challenged by the patient and rescue problem, not forced to guess how an imperfect piece of equipment behaves in an imaginary world.

A scoping review of inter professional simulation found that fear of mistakes and uncertainty were barriers to psychological safety. Structured pre briefing, trained facilitation, and a no blame culture supported fuller participation. That evidence is indirect for technical rescue, but the lesson transfers: people learn more effectively when they understand the environment in which they are being asked to perform.

A good prebrief does not reveal the diagnosis or solution. It removes avoidable ambiguity so there is more room for curiosity, communication, clinical reasoning, and honest discussion afterward.

Our in-house AI-powered after-action learning process helps preserve those expectations alongside the timeline, participant observations, and eventual improvement actions.

The dogma that surprise creates realism needs to die.

Does your pre brief explain the rules of the exercise, or leave learners trying to read the facilitator’s mind?

Reference

Lackie, K., Hayward, K., Ayn, C., Stilwell, P., Lane, J., Andrews, C., Dutton, T., Ferkol, D., Harris, J., Houk, S., Pendergast, N., Persaud, D., Thillaye, J., Mills, J., Grant, S., & Munroe, A. (2023). Creating psychological safety in interprofessional simulation for health professional learners: A scoping review of the barriers and enablers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(2), 187–202.

08/02/2026

Movement as a patient care event:

The stair system can operate perfectly while the patient’s physiology fails.

In this simulation, the patient was intentionally hemodynamically fragile. A significant blood pressure drop was identified following the tight stair transition.

It would be easy to assign a single cause. The movement placed the patient on an incline. Midazolam had been administered. Ventilation was being supported. Relative volume status, vascular tone, positioning, and the physical stress of extrication may all have contributed.

The scenario did not provide a clean answer. Real patients rarely do either.

That is why movement should be treated as a clinical event rather than transportation between two treatment locations.

Before the patient leaves a relatively controlled position, the team should discuss the current trend, the desired physiological target, the likely causes of instability and what treatment can realistically be delivered during the next phase. Equipment, vascular access, medications and monitoring should be organized around the movement plan.

A fluid bolus or push dose vasopressor may be appropriate for a selected patient under local protocol and medical direction. Neither should become an automatic pre movement intervention. The team first needs to understand the probable cause of the hypotension, the risks of treatment and the perfusion goal it is trying to achieve.

The most useful question may be: where would we prefer this patient to deteriorate?

If the answer is “not halfway through the stairs,” the clinical preparation must happen before the litter changes angle.

Before your next difficult move, can the team state the pressure target, likely cause of instability and immediate response if the patient deteriorates?

Movement changes physiology whether the rigging team notices or not.

Reference

Quenot, J.-P., Milési, C., Cravoisy, A., Capellier, G., Mimoz, O., Fourcade, O., & Gueugniaud, P.-Y. (2012). Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients excluding newborns: Recommendations of the SRLF, SFAR, and SFMU. Annals of Intensive Care, 2, Article 1.

08/01/2026

Packaging without losing care:

A patient can be fully packaged and clinically less secure than they were five minutes earlier.

This simulation was deliberately designed around airway management during movement.

After seizure control and midazolam administration, the simulated patient remained apneic. That was not intended to suggest that prolonged apnea is the expected outcome in every similar patient. It created a difficult operational problem: the team had to package and move a patient while continuing assisted ventilation approximately every six seconds.

It is a little like patting your head while rubbing your stomach: except a missed step may affect oxygen delivery.

Packaging already demands attention to positioning, equipment, access, and the route ahead. Add airway positioning, mask or device seal, chest rise, ventilation timing, oxygen supply, circuit security and patient reassessment, and the cognitive load rises quickly.

The AAR identified a monitoring gap during packaging. Oxygen saturation changes were not immediately recognized because attention had shifted toward the physical task. That is not an unusual human response. It is exactly why the scenario was valuable.

During your next evolution, do not assume airway care will continue simply because someone is standing at the patient’s head. Make it a measured training objective. Assign the airway role, continue ventilations throughout packaging and movement, and review how many effective breaths were actually delivered by monitoring chest rise. Record leaks, disconnections, missed ventilations and moments when the rescuer lost access.

The airway slipping is not the end of the scenario. It is the data the scenario was designed to reveal.

How many effective ventilations does your patient miss during the most difficult times of the movement?

Packaging is only successful if patient care survives the package.

Reference

Kleinman, M. E., Buick, J. E., Huber, N., Idris, A. H., Levy, M., Morgan, S. G., Nassal, M. M. J., Neth, M. R., Norii, T., Nunnally, M. E., Rodriguez, A. J., Walsh, B. K., & Drennan, I. R. (2025). Part 7: Adult basic life support: 2025 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation, 152(Suppl. 2), S448–S478.

07/31/2026

Shared Metal Models for Teams

A shared mental model does not require everyone to speak the same technical language.

This scenario stretched across multiple levels, separate work areas and different professional disciplines. The medical team was managing an apneic patient following a seizure. The rescue team was building and operating movement systems. Other members were controlling equipment, access and scene safety.

Each group needed discipline specific communication. Rope technicians still had to discuss anchors, transitions and system operation with precision. Medical personnel needed to discuss ventilation, hemodynamics and treatment priorities using appropriate clinical language.

The failure occurs when those conversations never reconnect.

A shared mental model means that everyone understands the parts of the situation that affect the whole operation: the patient’s current condition, the next movement, the primary risk, the objective and the condition that would stop the plan.

That information should be communicated in plain, common language at the interface between teams. Once the shared plan is established, each discipline can return to its own concise technical communication.

Under pressure, more communication is not always better. The goal is the right information reaching the right people before it becomes urgent.

A short update-and-plan huddle before each major transition can establish that common picture:

The patient is currently here.
The next movement is this.
The main clinical and technical risks are these.
We stop if this occurs.

Could every branch leader in your next multi-level scenario independently describe the patient’s condition, next movement and stop condition?

Separate the work, not the understanding.

Reference

Floren, L. C., Donesky, D., Whitaker, E., Irby, D. M., ten Cate, O., & O’Brien, B. C. (2018). Are we on the same page? Shared mental models to support clinical teamwork among health professions learners: A scoping review. Academic Medicine, 93(3), 498–509.

07/30/2026

Airway escalation as extrication tool

The least invasive airway is not always the least harmful airway once movement begins.

This simulation began with basic airway support and assisted ventilations. That was reasonable. Escalating an airway introduces its own risks, and advanced does not automatically mean better.

The decision changed when the rescue plan required a prolonged movement through tight spaces and a rope-assisted extrication.

In this setting, the i-gel became more than an airway device. It became an extrication tool: a way to maintain a more consistent route for ventilation while access to the patient’s face, rescuer positioning and mask seal were expected to deteriorate.

That distinction matters.

During our SUSPEND CPR testing, trained rescuers appeared to be providing BVM ventilations during difficult movement, but measured tidal volume did not always reach the patient when the mask seal was compromised. That observation is not yet definitive rescue evidence, but it exposes an important problem:

Squeezing the bag does not confirm ventilation.

Calling a supraglottic airway an extrication tool does not mean placing one in every patient before movement. It means considering whether the airway strategy that works while stationary will remain reliable once the patient is packaged, tilted, hauled and passed between rescuers.

Before movement, teams should identify their criteria for escalation. They should also determine how ventilation will be assessed, who will control the airway, how the circuit will be secured and what finding will stop the movement. Chest rise, oxygenation, ventilation and waveform capnography when available must be interpreted together.

What finding would make your team escalate the airway before the first difficult movement begins?

Ensure the airway of choice matches the requirements for the entirety of the extrication

Reference

Lyng, J. W., Baldino, K. T., Braude, D., Fritz, C., March, J. A., Peterson, T. D., & Yee, A. (2022). Prehospital supraglottic airways: An NAEMSP position statement and resource document. Prehospital Emergency Care, 26(Suppl. 1), 32–41.

Bad Day Canada

09/02/2026

08/22/2026

08/20/2026

08/19/2026

08/18/2026

08/04/2026

08/02/2026

08/01/2026

07/31/2026

07/30/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request