Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-18 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33
Matthew Jian Wen Low, Gene Wai Han Chan, Zisheng Li, Yiwen Koh, Chi Loong Jen, Zi Yao Lee, Lenard Tai Win Cheng
{"title":"Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Matthew Jian Wen Low, Gene Wai Han Chan, Zisheng Li, Yiwen Koh, Chi Loong Jen, Zi Yao Lee, Lenard Tai Win Cheng","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in emergency departments from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom's taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the 2-tailed t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen's d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen's d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"21 ","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in emergency departments from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom's taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the 2-tailed t-test.

Results: For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen's d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen's d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).

Conclusion: For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新加坡脓毒症和创伤复苏培训中虚拟和现场模拟的比较:随机对照试验。
目的:本研究旨在比较虚拟患者模拟(VPS)与现场模拟(IPS)对新手败血症和创伤复苏技能的认知、非认知和总体学习效果:2022 年 1 月至 12 月期间,我们对急诊科的初级医生进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了 70 分钟 VPS(19 人)与 IPS(21 人)在败血症和创伤复苏方面的效果。我们使用名义小组技术创建了技能评估核对表,并确定了每个核对表项目的布卢姆分类学领域。两名双盲评分员观察了学员在败血症和创伤复苏模拟教学中的表现。满意度采用学生学习满意度量表(SSLS)进行测量。采用双尾 t 检验对 SSLS 和核对表得分进行分析:对于败血症,VPS 和 IPS 在总分(2.0;95% 置信区间[CI],-1.4 至 5.4;Cohen's d=0.38)以及认知项目(1.1;95% 置信区间,-1.5 至 3.7)和非认知项目(0.9;95% 置信区间,-0.4 至 2.2)方面均无显著差异。同样,在创伤方面,总分(-0.9;95% CI,-4.1 至 2.3;Cohen's d=0.19)以及认知项目(-0.3;95% CI,-2.8 至 2.1)和非认知项目(-0.6;95% CI,-2.4 至 1.3)均无显著差异。VPS 的 SSLS 中位数得分低于 IPS(-3.0;95% CI,-1.0 至-5.0):对于新手而言,VPS 和 IPS 在败血症和创伤复苏的总体和非认知学习成果方面没有重大差异。学员对 IPS 的满意度高于 VPS(clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study Presidential address 2024: the expansion of computer-based testing to numerous health professions licensing examinations in Korea, preparation of computer-based practical tests, and adoption of the medical metaverse. Development and validity evidence for the resident-led large group teaching assessment instrument in the United States: a methodological study. ChatGPT (GPT-4) passed the Japanese National License Examination for Pharmacists in 2022, answering all items including those with diagrams: a descriptive study. Discovering social learning ecosystems during clinical clerkship from United States medical students’ feedback encounters: a content analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1