心肺复苏中的快速循环刻意练习与事后汇报临床模拟:一项集群随机试验。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI:10.1186/s41077-022-00239-8
Leandro Teixeira de Castro, Andreia Melo Coriolano, Karina Burckart, Mislane Bezerra Soares, Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi, Vitor Emer Egypto Rosa, Antônio Sérgio de Santis Andrade Lopes, Thomaz Bittencourt Couto
{"title":"心肺复苏中的快速循环刻意练习与事后汇报临床模拟:一项集群随机试验。","authors":"Leandro Teixeira de Castro,&nbsp;Andreia Melo Coriolano,&nbsp;Karina Burckart,&nbsp;Mislane Bezerra Soares,&nbsp;Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi,&nbsp;Vitor Emer Egypto Rosa,&nbsp;Antônio Sérgio de Santis Andrade Lopes,&nbsp;Thomaz Bittencourt Couto","doi":"10.1186/s41077-022-00239-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a simulation-based educational strategy that consists of repeating a simulation scenario a number of times to acquire a planned competency. When the objective of a cycle is achieved, a new cycle initiates with increased skill complexity. There have been no previous randomized studies comparing after-event debriefing clinical manikin-based simulation to RCDP in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited physicians from the post-graduate program on Emergency Medicine of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. Groups were randomized 1:1 to RCDP or after-event debriefing simulation prior to the first station of CPR training. During the first 5 min of the pre-intervention scenario, both groups participated in a simulated case of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without facilitator interference; after the first 5 min, each scenario was then facilitated according to group allocation (RCDP or after-event debriefing). In a second scenario of CPR later in the day with the same participants, there was no facilitator intervention, and the planned outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was the chest compression fraction during CPR in the post-intervention scenario. Secondary outcomes comprised time for recognition of the cardiac arrest, time for first verbalization of the cardiac arrest initial rhythm, time for first defibrillation, and mean pre-defibrillation pause.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed data of three courses conducted between June 2018 and July 2019, with 76 participants divided into 9 teams. Each team had a median of 8 participants. In the post-intervention scenario, the RCDP teams had a significantly higher chest compression fraction than the after-event debriefing group (80.0% vs 63.6%; p = 0.036). The RCDP group also demonstrated a significantly lower time between recognition of the rhythm and defibrillation (6 vs 25 s; p value = 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCDP simulation strategy is associated with significantly higher manikin chest compression fraction during CPR when compared to an after-event debriefing simulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"7 1","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9798613/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rapid-cycle deliberate practice versus after-event debriefing clinical simulation in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a cluster randomized trial.\",\"authors\":\"Leandro Teixeira de Castro,&nbsp;Andreia Melo Coriolano,&nbsp;Karina Burckart,&nbsp;Mislane Bezerra Soares,&nbsp;Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi,&nbsp;Vitor Emer Egypto Rosa,&nbsp;Antônio Sérgio de Santis Andrade Lopes,&nbsp;Thomaz Bittencourt Couto\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-022-00239-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a simulation-based educational strategy that consists of repeating a simulation scenario a number of times to acquire a planned competency. When the objective of a cycle is achieved, a new cycle initiates with increased skill complexity. There have been no previous randomized studies comparing after-event debriefing clinical manikin-based simulation to RCDP in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited physicians from the post-graduate program on Emergency Medicine of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. Groups were randomized 1:1 to RCDP or after-event debriefing simulation prior to the first station of CPR training. During the first 5 min of the pre-intervention scenario, both groups participated in a simulated case of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without facilitator interference; after the first 5 min, each scenario was then facilitated according to group allocation (RCDP or after-event debriefing). In a second scenario of CPR later in the day with the same participants, there was no facilitator intervention, and the planned outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was the chest compression fraction during CPR in the post-intervention scenario. Secondary outcomes comprised time for recognition of the cardiac arrest, time for first verbalization of the cardiac arrest initial rhythm, time for first defibrillation, and mean pre-defibrillation pause.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed data of three courses conducted between June 2018 and July 2019, with 76 participants divided into 9 teams. Each team had a median of 8 participants. In the post-intervention scenario, the RCDP teams had a significantly higher chest compression fraction than the after-event debriefing group (80.0% vs 63.6%; p = 0.036). The RCDP group also demonstrated a significantly lower time between recognition of the rhythm and defibrillation (6 vs 25 s; p value = 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCDP simulation strategy is associated with significantly higher manikin chest compression fraction during CPR when compared to an after-event debriefing simulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9798613/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00239-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00239-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

简介:快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)是一种基于模拟的教育策略,包括多次重复模拟场景以获得计划的能力。当一个循环的目标实现时,一个新的循环开始,技能的复杂性增加。在成人心肺复苏术(CPR)中,尚无随机对照研究比较基于人体模型的事后报告临床模拟与RCDP。方法:我们邀请了来自以色列阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦医院急诊医学研究生项目的医生。各组在第一站CPR训练前按1:1随机分为RCDP或事后汇报模拟。在干预前情景的前5分钟,两组都参与了一个没有助听器干扰的院外心脏骤停的模拟案例;在前5分钟后,根据小组分配(RCDP或事后汇报)促进每个场景。在当天晚些时候对同样的参与者进行CPR的第二个场景中,没有辅助干预,并对计划的结果进行评估。主要结局是干预后情况下CPR期间的胸部压缩分数。次要结果包括识别心脏骤停的时间,心脏骤停初始节律的首次言语化时间,首次除颤时间和平均除颤前暂停时间。结果:我们分析了2018年6月至2019年7月期间进行的三个课程的数据,76名参与者分为9个小组。每个小组的参与者中位数为8人。在干预后的情况下,RCDP组的胸压分数明显高于事后述诉组(80.0% vs 63.6%;p = 0.036)。RCDP组也表现出节律识别和除颤之间的时间显著缩短(6 vs 25 s;P值= 0.036)。结论:与事后汇报模拟相比,RCDP模拟策略与心肺复苏术中较高的假人胸部压缩率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Rapid-cycle deliberate practice versus after-event debriefing clinical simulation in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a cluster randomized trial.

Introduction: Rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a simulation-based educational strategy that consists of repeating a simulation scenario a number of times to acquire a planned competency. When the objective of a cycle is achieved, a new cycle initiates with increased skill complexity. There have been no previous randomized studies comparing after-event debriefing clinical manikin-based simulation to RCDP in adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Methods: We invited physicians from the post-graduate program on Emergency Medicine of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. Groups were randomized 1:1 to RCDP or after-event debriefing simulation prior to the first station of CPR training. During the first 5 min of the pre-intervention scenario, both groups participated in a simulated case of an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without facilitator interference; after the first 5 min, each scenario was then facilitated according to group allocation (RCDP or after-event debriefing). In a second scenario of CPR later in the day with the same participants, there was no facilitator intervention, and the planned outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was the chest compression fraction during CPR in the post-intervention scenario. Secondary outcomes comprised time for recognition of the cardiac arrest, time for first verbalization of the cardiac arrest initial rhythm, time for first defibrillation, and mean pre-defibrillation pause.

Results: We analyzed data of three courses conducted between June 2018 and July 2019, with 76 participants divided into 9 teams. Each team had a median of 8 participants. In the post-intervention scenario, the RCDP teams had a significantly higher chest compression fraction than the after-event debriefing group (80.0% vs 63.6%; p = 0.036). The RCDP group also demonstrated a significantly lower time between recognition of the rhythm and defibrillation (6 vs 25 s; p value = 0.036).

Conclusion: RCDP simulation strategy is associated with significantly higher manikin chest compression fraction during CPR when compared to an after-event debriefing simulation.

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
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Massive open online course: a new strategy for faculty development needs in healthcare simulation. Changing the conversation: impact of guidelines designed to optimize interprofessional facilitation of simulation-based team training. Speech recognition technology for assessing team debriefing communication and interaction patterns: An algorithmic toolkit for healthcare simulation educators. Effectiveness of hybrid simulation training on medical student performance in whole-task consultation of cardiac patients: The ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE randomized waitlist-controlled trial. Using simulation scenarios and a debriefing structure to promote feedback skills among interprofessional team members in clinical practice.
×
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