住院医师教育中模拟心肺复苏的快速循环慎重实践培训。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.5811/westjem.17923
Jaron D Raper, Charles A Khoury, Anderson Marshall, Robert Smola, Zachary Pacheco, Jason Morris, Guihua Zhai, Stephanie Berger, Ryan Kraemer, Andrew D Bloom
{"title":"住院医师教育中模拟心肺复苏的快速循环慎重实践培训。","authors":"Jaron D Raper, Charles A Khoury, Anderson Marshall, Robert Smola, Zachary Pacheco, Jason Morris, Guihua Zhai, Stephanie Berger, Ryan Kraemer, Andrew D Bloom","doi":"10.5811/westjem.17923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation-based medical education has been used in medical training for decades. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a novel simulation strategy that uses iterative practice and feedback to achieve skill mastery. To date, there has been minimal evaluation of RCDP vs standard immersive simulation (IS) for the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to graduate medical education (GME) learners. Our primary objective was to compare the time to performance of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) actions between trainees who completed RCDP vs IS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. A total of 55 postgraduate year-1 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Residents were randomized to instruction by RCDP (28) or IS (27). Stress and ability were self-assessed before and after training using an anonymous survey that incorporated five-point Likert-type questions. We measured and compared times to initiate critical ACLS actions between the two groups during a subsequent IS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior learner experience between RCDP and IS groups was similar. Times to completion of the first pulse check, chest compression initiation, backboard placement, pad placement, initial rhythm analysis, first defibrillation, epinephrine administration, and antiarrhythmic administration were similar between RCDP and IS groups. However, RCDP groups took less time to complete the pulse check between compression cycles (6.2 vs 14.2 seconds, <i>P</i> = 0.01). Following training, learners in the RCDP and IS groups scored their ability to lead and their levels of anticipated stress similarly (3.43 vs 3.30, (<i>P</i> = 0.77), 2.43 vs. 2.41, <i>P</i> = 0.98, respectively). However, RCDP groups rated their ability to participate in resuscitation more highly (4.50 vs 3.96, <i>P</i> = 0.01). The RCDP groups also reported their realized stress of participating in the event as lower than that of the IS groups (2.36 vs 2.85, <i>P</i> = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rapid cycle deliberate practice learners demonstrated a shorter pulse check duration, reported lower stress levels associated with their experience, and rated their ability to participate in ACLS care more highly than their IS-trained peers. Our results support further investigation of RCDP in other simulation settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"197-204"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Training for Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Resident Education.\",\"authors\":\"Jaron D Raper, Charles A Khoury, Anderson Marshall, Robert Smola, Zachary Pacheco, Jason Morris, Guihua Zhai, Stephanie Berger, Ryan Kraemer, Andrew D Bloom\",\"doi\":\"10.5811/westjem.17923\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulation-based medical education has been used in medical training for decades. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a novel simulation strategy that uses iterative practice and feedback to achieve skill mastery. To date, there has been minimal evaluation of RCDP vs standard immersive simulation (IS) for the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to graduate medical education (GME) learners. Our primary objective was to compare the time to performance of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) actions between trainees who completed RCDP vs IS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. A total of 55 postgraduate year-1 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Residents were randomized to instruction by RCDP (28) or IS (27). Stress and ability were self-assessed before and after training using an anonymous survey that incorporated five-point Likert-type questions. We measured and compared times to initiate critical ACLS actions between the two groups during a subsequent IS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior learner experience between RCDP and IS groups was similar. Times to completion of the first pulse check, chest compression initiation, backboard placement, pad placement, initial rhythm analysis, first defibrillation, epinephrine administration, and antiarrhythmic administration were similar between RCDP and IS groups. However, RCDP groups took less time to complete the pulse check between compression cycles (6.2 vs 14.2 seconds, <i>P</i> = 0.01). Following training, learners in the RCDP and IS groups scored their ability to lead and their levels of anticipated stress similarly (3.43 vs 3.30, (<i>P</i> = 0.77), 2.43 vs. 2.41, <i>P</i> = 0.98, respectively). However, RCDP groups rated their ability to participate in resuscitation more highly (4.50 vs 3.96, <i>P</i> = 0.01). The RCDP groups also reported their realized stress of participating in the event as lower than that of the IS groups (2.36 vs 2.85, <i>P</i> = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rapid cycle deliberate practice learners demonstrated a shorter pulse check duration, reported lower stress levels associated with their experience, and rated their ability to participate in ACLS care more highly than their IS-trained peers. Our results support further investigation of RCDP in other simulation settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"197-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11000545/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.17923\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.17923","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于模拟的医学教育已在医学培训中应用了几十年。快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)是一种新颖的模拟策略,通过反复练习和反馈来达到掌握技能的目的。迄今为止,在对医学研究生教育(GME)学员进行心肺复苏教学时,对 RCDP 与标准沉浸式模拟(IS)的评估极少。我们的主要目的是比较完成 RCDP 与 IS 的学员完成高级心脏复苏术(ACLS)动作的时间:本研究是一项前瞻性、随机对照课程评估。共有 55 名研究生一年级内科和急诊科住院医师参与了这项研究。住院医师被随机分配接受 RCDP(28 人)或 IS(27 人)的指导。培训前和培训后,我们使用匿名调查对压力和能力进行了自我评估,调查中包含五点李克特(Likert)类型的问题。在随后的 IS 培训中,我们测量并比较了两组学员启动 ACLS 关键行动的时间:结果:RCDP 组和 IS 组学员之前的学习经验相似。RCDP 组和 IS 组完成首次脉搏检查、胸外按压启动、背板放置、垫子放置、初始心律分析、首次除颤、肾上腺素给药和抗心律失常给药的时间相似。但是,RCDP 组在两次按压之间完成脉搏检查所需的时间较短(6.2 秒 vs 14.2 秒,P = 0.01)。培训结束后,RCDP 组和 IS 组学员对其领导能力和预期压力水平的评分相似(分别为 3.43 vs 3.30,(P = 0.77),2.43 vs 2.41,P = 0.98)。但是,RCDP 组对自己参与复苏的能力评价更高(4.50 vs 3.96,P = 0.01)。此外,RCDP 组对参与活动的压力感也低于 IS 组(2.36 vs 2.85,P = 0.01):结论:与接受过 IS 培训的学员相比,快速循环刻意练习学员的脉搏检查持续时间更短、报告的相关压力水平更低、对参与 ACLS 护理能力的评价更高。我们的结果支持在其他模拟环境中进一步研究 RCDP。
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
Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Training for Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Resident Education.

Background: Simulation-based medical education has been used in medical training for decades. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a novel simulation strategy that uses iterative practice and feedback to achieve skill mastery. To date, there has been minimal evaluation of RCDP vs standard immersive simulation (IS) for the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to graduate medical education (GME) learners. Our primary objective was to compare the time to performance of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) actions between trainees who completed RCDP vs IS.

Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. A total of 55 postgraduate year-1 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Residents were randomized to instruction by RCDP (28) or IS (27). Stress and ability were self-assessed before and after training using an anonymous survey that incorporated five-point Likert-type questions. We measured and compared times to initiate critical ACLS actions between the two groups during a subsequent IS.

Results: Prior learner experience between RCDP and IS groups was similar. Times to completion of the first pulse check, chest compression initiation, backboard placement, pad placement, initial rhythm analysis, first defibrillation, epinephrine administration, and antiarrhythmic administration were similar between RCDP and IS groups. However, RCDP groups took less time to complete the pulse check between compression cycles (6.2 vs 14.2 seconds, P = 0.01). Following training, learners in the RCDP and IS groups scored their ability to lead and their levels of anticipated stress similarly (3.43 vs 3.30, (P = 0.77), 2.43 vs. 2.41, P = 0.98, respectively). However, RCDP groups rated their ability to participate in resuscitation more highly (4.50 vs 3.96, P = 0.01). The RCDP groups also reported their realized stress of participating in the event as lower than that of the IS groups (2.36 vs 2.85, P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Rapid cycle deliberate practice learners demonstrated a shorter pulse check duration, reported lower stress levels associated with their experience, and rated their ability to participate in ACLS care more highly than their IS-trained peers. Our results support further investigation of RCDP in other simulation settings.

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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Prehospital Ultrasound Training on Simulated Paramedic Clinical Decision-Making. Interfacility Patient Transfers During COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed-Methods Study. Making A Difference: Launching a Multimodal, Resident-Run Social Emergency Medicine Program. Methadone Initiation in the Emergency Department for Opioid Use Disorder. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Sepsis in Adult Patients Meeting Two or More Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria.
×
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