美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)游戏化模拟训练的可行性研究。

IF 2.8 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Advances in simulation (London, England) Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4
Astrid Karina V Harring, Jo Røislien, Karianne Larsen, Mona Guterud, Helge Fagerheim Bugge, Else Charlotte Sandset, Dorte V Kristensen, Maren Ranhoff Hov
{"title":"美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)游戏化模拟训练的可行性研究。","authors":"Astrid Karina V Harring,&nbsp;Jo Røislien,&nbsp;Karianne Larsen,&nbsp;Mona Guterud,&nbsp;Helge Fagerheim Bugge,&nbsp;Else Charlotte Sandset,&nbsp;Dorte V Kristensen,&nbsp;Maren Ranhoff Hov","doi":"10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"8 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamification of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) for simulation training-a feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"Astrid Karina V Harring,&nbsp;Jo Røislien,&nbsp;Karianne Larsen,&nbsp;Mona Guterud,&nbsp;Helge Fagerheim Bugge,&nbsp;Else Charlotte Sandset,&nbsp;Dorte V Kristensen,&nbsp;Maren Ranhoff Hov\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945669/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4\",\"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/s41077-023-00245-4","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: 0

摘要

背景:培训院前人员识别急性脑卒中患者是提供快速治疗的关键。本研究旨在探讨基于游戏的数字模拟训练是否可以替代标准的现场模拟训练。方法:邀请挪威奥斯陆城市大学二年级护理本科学生参加一项研究,将基于游戏的数字模拟(干预)与标准的面对面培训(对照)进行比较。在2个月的时间里,学生们被鼓励练习NIHSS,两组都记录了他们的模拟。然后,他们进行了临床熟练程度测试,并使用Bland-Altman图评估他们的结果,该图具有相应的95%一致限(LoA)。结果:50名学生参与研究。游戏组(n = 23)的个体平均花费42:36分钟(36分钟)在游戏上,平均进行14.4次(13次)模拟,而对照组(n = 27)的个体平均花费9:28分钟(8分钟)模拟,进行2.5次(1次)模拟。比较干预期间收集的时间变量,游戏组每次模拟评估的平均时间显著缩短(2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004)。在最终的临床熟练度测试中,游戏组与真实NIHSS得分的平均差异为0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 ~ 2.67),对照组与真实NIHSS得分的平均差异为0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 ~ 3.02)。结论:基于游戏的数字模拟训练是标准的现场模拟训练的可行替代方案,可获得NIHSS评估能力。游戏化似乎给了人们更多的动机去模拟,并以同样的准确性更快地进行评估。试验注册:该研究由挪威研究数据中心批准(参考号:543238)。
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

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
Gamification of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) for simulation training-a feasibility study.

Background: Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.

Methods: Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Results: Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.

Conclusion: Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.

Trial registration: The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).

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
Educational design insights for interprofessional immersive simulation to prepare allied health students for clinical placements. 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.
×
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