Michael Hrdy, Walter Faig, Dennis Ren, Brian Lee, Khoon-Yen Tay, Brittany Guttadauria, Pavan Zaveri, Megan Lavoie, Xian Zhao
{"title":"A Comparison of Telesimulation Using the Virtual Resus Room and In Situ Simulation in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.","authors":"Michael Hrdy, Walter Faig, Dennis Ren, Brian Lee, Khoon-Yen Tay, Brittany Guttadauria, Pavan Zaveri, Megan Lavoie, Xian Zhao","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":"711-716"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.
Methods: Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.
Results: In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.
Conclusions: Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.