Development and Optimization of a Remote Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Bootcamp Using Telesimulation

IF 0.5 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI:10.1055/s-0043-1767736
Felina Mille, A. Romer, Tarif A. Choudhury, Adrian D. Zurca, S. B. Peddy, K. Widmeier, Marjorie A. Hamburger, Venkatramanan Shankar
{"title":"Development and Optimization of a Remote Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Bootcamp Using Telesimulation","authors":"Felina Mille, A. Romer, Tarif A. Choudhury, Adrian D. Zurca, S. B. Peddy, K. Widmeier, Marjorie A. Hamburger, Venkatramanan Shankar","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1767736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We developed a novel cardiac critical care bootcamp consisting of didactic, small group, and simulation sessions. The bootcamp was remote due to the COVID-19 pandemic and included telesimulation. We aimed to assess learners' reactions to the bootcamp and their perception of telesimulation. Paired anonymous surveys were administered before and after participation. Surveys assessed participants' comfort in independently managing cardiac critical care scenarios, perceptions of telesimulation, barriers to its effectiveness, and specific feedback on course components. Forty-three fellows from 10 institutions joined the bootcamp over 2 years. Thirty-eight pre- and 28 postcourse surveys were completed. The course was rated good or excellent by all respondents, and 27/28 rated the material as appropriate to their level of training. Based on feedback from 2020, the electrophysiology sessions were converted to a small group format in 2021; positive assessment of these sessions improved from 65 to 90–100%. The telesimulations were highly rated, with 83–94% of participants in 2020 and 90–100% in 2021 rating them as good or excellent. Participants' views on telesimulation improved following the course, with 78% (14/18) post- versus 50% preparticipation agreeing that telesimulation is an effective educational tool ( p  = 0.06) and 56% (10/18) post- versus 67% (12/18) pre-rating telesimulation as less effective than in person simulation ( p  = 0.04). Identified limitations of telesimulation were limited active participation, lack of realism, impaired flow of conversation, and audiovisual and technical concerns. Telesimulation is feasible in cardiac critical care education and was an acceptable alternative to in person simulation for course participants.","PeriodicalId":44426,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1767736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract We developed a novel cardiac critical care bootcamp consisting of didactic, small group, and simulation sessions. The bootcamp was remote due to the COVID-19 pandemic and included telesimulation. We aimed to assess learners' reactions to the bootcamp and their perception of telesimulation. Paired anonymous surveys were administered before and after participation. Surveys assessed participants' comfort in independently managing cardiac critical care scenarios, perceptions of telesimulation, barriers to its effectiveness, and specific feedback on course components. Forty-three fellows from 10 institutions joined the bootcamp over 2 years. Thirty-eight pre- and 28 postcourse surveys were completed. The course was rated good or excellent by all respondents, and 27/28 rated the material as appropriate to their level of training. Based on feedback from 2020, the electrophysiology sessions were converted to a small group format in 2021; positive assessment of these sessions improved from 65 to 90–100%. The telesimulations were highly rated, with 83–94% of participants in 2020 and 90–100% in 2021 rating them as good or excellent. Participants' views on telesimulation improved following the course, with 78% (14/18) post- versus 50% preparticipation agreeing that telesimulation is an effective educational tool ( p  = 0.06) and 56% (10/18) post- versus 67% (12/18) pre-rating telesimulation as less effective than in person simulation ( p  = 0.04). Identified limitations of telesimulation were limited active participation, lack of realism, impaired flow of conversation, and audiovisual and technical concerns. Telesimulation is feasible in cardiac critical care education and was an acceptable alternative to in person simulation for course participants.
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
远程模拟儿童心脏重症监护训练营的开发与优化
我们开发了一种新的心脏重症监护训练营,包括教学,小组和模拟会议。由于新型冠状病毒感染症(COVID-19)大流行,训练营是远程的,并包括远程模拟。我们的目的是评估学习者对训练营的反应和他们对远程模拟的感知。在参与之前和之后进行了配对匿名调查。调查评估了参与者在独立管理心脏重症监护情景时的舒适度,对远程模拟的感知,其有效性的障碍,以及对课程组成部分的具体反馈。来自10个机构的43名学员在两年多的时间里参加了训练营。完成了38项课程前调查和28项课程后调查。所有受访者都认为课程是好的或优秀的,27/28的受访者认为材料适合他们的培训水平。根据2020年的反馈,电生理学会议在2021年转换为小组形式;这些课程的积极评价从65%提高到90-100%。模拟得到了很高的评价,2020年有83-94%的参与者和2021年有90-100%的参与者将模拟评为“好”或“优秀”。课程结束后,参与者对远程模拟的看法有所改善,78%(14/18)的参与者和50%的参与者同意远程模拟是一种有效的教育工具(p = 0.06), 56%(10/18)的参与者和67%(12/18)的参与者认为远程模拟不如亲自模拟有效(p = 0.04)。已确定的远程模拟的限制是有限的积极参与,缺乏现实性,受损的对话流,以及视听和技术问题。远程模拟在心脏重症监护教育中是可行的,对于课程参与者来说是一种可接受的替代现场模拟的方法。
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
自引率
14.30%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Contributing Reviewers in 2023. Retraction Note: The Effects of Quran Recitation on Sedation and Pain in Children. Retraction Note: The Spiritual Dimension of Death: A Mini Review. Erratum: A Clinical Mathematical Model Estimating Postoperative Urine Output in Children Underwent Cardiopulmonary By-pass for Congenital Heart Surgery A Multicenter Retrospective Evaluation of Social Determinant of Health Z Code Usage among Pediatric Patients with Critical Care Visits during Pediatric Critical Care
×
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