支气管镜引导插管高仿真模拟器培训的最佳持续时间:非劣效性随机试验。

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-05 DOI:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739
Luyang Jiang, Qingmei Yang, Qingyue Li, Bailin Jiang, Ciren Laba, Yi Feng
{"title":"支气管镜引导插管高仿真模拟器培训的最佳持续时间:非劣效性随机试验。","authors":"Luyang Jiang, Qingmei Yang, Qingyue Li, Bailin Jiang, Ciren Laba, Yi Feng","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Luyang Jiang, Qingmei Yang, Qingyue Li, Bailin Jiang, Ciren Laba, Yi Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介柔性光学支气管镜(FOB)插管的最佳模拟器培训时间尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定在临床 FOB 插管时间方面,基于学习曲线的培训模式是否不劣于固定培训时间模式:这项多中心、随机、非劣效性研究于 2022 年 5 月至 8 月进行。麻醉学住院医师或实习生参加了研究。符合条件的参与者按 1:1 的比例随机接受基于学习曲线的新模拟器培训(根据成绩确定个性化培训时间,New 组)或参考固定培训时间的模拟器培训(1 小时,Reference 组)。主要结果是患者完成 FOB 插管的时间,定义为从将 FOB 引入口腔到首次显像的时间。检测临床意义的余量定义为 10 秒:共有 32 名学员参与分析(每组 16 人)。所有学员都成功为患者插管。新组的平均插管时间(95% 置信区间 [CI])为 81.9(65.7-98.1)秒,参考组为 97.0(77.4-116.6)秒。组间临床插管时间平均差异的单侧 97.5% CI 上限为 9.3 秒。该结果被认为不具优越性。New 组的平均培训时间为 28.4 分钟(95% CI,23.5-33.4 分钟)。新组在模拟器上的培训总次数明显少于参照组(P < 0.01):结论:New组的临床FOB插管时间不劣于Reference组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.

Introduction: The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.

Methods: This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.

Results: A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).

Conclusions: The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.
期刊最新文献
Creation of a Novel Child Simulator and Curriculum to Optimize Administration of Seizure Rescue Medication. Increase in Newborns Ventilated Within the First Minute of Life and Reduced Mortality After Clinical Data-Guided Simulation Training. Systematic Review of Procedural Skill Simulation in Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial. Theoretical, Conceptual, and Operational Aspects in Simulation Training With Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice: An Integrative Review.
×
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