我们是在说练习吗?一项比较基于模拟的刻意练习和掌握式学习与自主练习的随机研究。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00531-0
Andrew Petrosoniak, Jonathan Sherbino, Thomas Beardsley, James Bonz, Sara Gray, Andrew K Hall, Christopher Hicks, Julie Kim, George Mastoras, Melissa McGowan, Julian Owen, Ambrose H Wong, Sandra Monteiro
{"title":"我们是在说练习吗?一项比较基于模拟的刻意练习和掌握式学习与自主练习的随机研究。","authors":"Andrew Petrosoniak,&nbsp;Jonathan Sherbino,&nbsp;Thomas Beardsley,&nbsp;James Bonz,&nbsp;Sara Gray,&nbsp;Andrew K Hall,&nbsp;Christopher Hicks,&nbsp;Julie Kim,&nbsp;George Mastoras,&nbsp;Melissa McGowan,&nbsp;Julian Owen,&nbsp;Ambrose H Wong,&nbsp;Sandra Monteiro","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00531-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Simulation-based technical skills training is now ubiquitous in medicine, particularly for high acuity, low occurrence (HALO) procedures. Mastery learning and deliberate practice (ML + DP) are potentially valuable educational methods, however, they are resource intensive. We sought to compare the effect of deliberate practice and mastery learning versus self-guided practice on skill performance of the rare, life-saving procedure, a bougie-assisted cricothyroidotomy (BAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multi-center, randomized study at five North American emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. We randomly assigned 176 EM residents to either the ML + DP or self-guided practice groups. Three blinded airway experts independently evaluated BAC skill performance by video review before (pre-test), after (post-test) and 6-12 months (retention) after the training session. The primary outcome was post-test skill performance using a global rating score (GRS). Secondary outcomes included performance time and skill performance at the retention test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Immediately following training, GRS scores were significantly higher as mean performance improved from pre-test, (22, 95% CI = 21-23) to post-test (27, 95% CI = 26-28), (p < 0.001) for all participants. However, there was no difference between the groups on GRS scores (p = 0.2) at the post-test or at the retention test (p = 0.2). At the retention test, participants in the ML + DP group had faster performance times (66 s, 95% CI = 57-74) compared to the self-guided group (77 s, 95% CI = 67-86), (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in skill performance between groups. Residents who received deliberate practice and mastery learning demonstrated an improvement in skill performance time.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 8","pages":"667-675"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are we talking about practice? A randomized study comparing simulation-based deliberate practice and mastery learning to self-guided practice.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Petrosoniak,&nbsp;Jonathan Sherbino,&nbsp;Thomas Beardsley,&nbsp;James Bonz,&nbsp;Sara Gray,&nbsp;Andrew K Hall,&nbsp;Christopher Hicks,&nbsp;Julie Kim,&nbsp;George Mastoras,&nbsp;Melissa McGowan,&nbsp;Julian Owen,&nbsp;Ambrose H Wong,&nbsp;Sandra Monteiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00531-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Simulation-based technical skills training is now ubiquitous in medicine, particularly for high acuity, low occurrence (HALO) procedures. Mastery learning and deliberate practice (ML + DP) are potentially valuable educational methods, however, they are resource intensive. We sought to compare the effect of deliberate practice and mastery learning versus self-guided practice on skill performance of the rare, life-saving procedure, a bougie-assisted cricothyroidotomy (BAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multi-center, randomized study at five North American emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. We randomly assigned 176 EM residents to either the ML + DP or self-guided practice groups. Three blinded airway experts independently evaluated BAC skill performance by video review before (pre-test), after (post-test) and 6-12 months (retention) after the training session. The primary outcome was post-test skill performance using a global rating score (GRS). Secondary outcomes included performance time and skill performance at the retention test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Immediately following training, GRS scores were significantly higher as mean performance improved from pre-test, (22, 95% CI = 21-23) to post-test (27, 95% CI = 26-28), (p < 0.001) for all participants. However, there was no difference between the groups on GRS scores (p = 0.2) at the post-test or at the retention test (p = 0.2). At the retention test, participants in the ML + DP group had faster performance times (66 s, 95% CI = 57-74) compared to the self-guided group (77 s, 95% CI = 67-86), (p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in skill performance between groups. Residents who received deliberate practice and mastery learning demonstrated an improvement in skill performance time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 8\",\"pages\":\"667-675\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00531-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00531-0","RegionNum":4,"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: 1

摘要

目的:基于模拟的技术技能培训现在在医学中无处不在,特别是对于高敏度,低发生率(HALO)手术。精通学习和刻意练习(ML + DP)是潜在的有价值的教育方法,然而,它们是资源密集型的。我们试图比较刻意练习和掌握学习与自我指导练习对罕见的救命手术环甲状腺切开术(BAC)的技能表现的影响。方法:我们在五个北美急诊医学(EM)住院医师项目中进行了一项多中心随机研究。我们随机将176名EM居民分配到ML + DP或自我指导实践组。三位盲法气道专家分别在培训前(测试前)、后(测试后)和培训后6-12个月(保留期)通过视频评估独立评估BAC技能表现。主要结果是使用全局评分(GRS)的测试后技能表现。次要结果包括在记忆测验中的表现、时间和技能表现。结果:训练后,GRS得分显著提高,平均表现从测试前(22,95% CI = 21-23)到测试后(27,95% CI = 26-28), (p)结论:组间技能表现无显著差异。接受刻意练习和掌握学习的住院医生在技能表现方面表现出改善。
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
Are we talking about practice? A randomized study comparing simulation-based deliberate practice and mastery learning to self-guided practice.

Objectives: Simulation-based technical skills training is now ubiquitous in medicine, particularly for high acuity, low occurrence (HALO) procedures. Mastery learning and deliberate practice (ML + DP) are potentially valuable educational methods, however, they are resource intensive. We sought to compare the effect of deliberate practice and mastery learning versus self-guided practice on skill performance of the rare, life-saving procedure, a bougie-assisted cricothyroidotomy (BAC).

Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized study at five North American emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. We randomly assigned 176 EM residents to either the ML + DP or self-guided practice groups. Three blinded airway experts independently evaluated BAC skill performance by video review before (pre-test), after (post-test) and 6-12 months (retention) after the training session. The primary outcome was post-test skill performance using a global rating score (GRS). Secondary outcomes included performance time and skill performance at the retention test.

Results: Immediately following training, GRS scores were significantly higher as mean performance improved from pre-test, (22, 95% CI = 21-23) to post-test (27, 95% CI = 26-28), (p < 0.001) for all participants. However, there was no difference between the groups on GRS scores (p = 0.2) at the post-test or at the retention test (p = 0.2). At the retention test, participants in the ML + DP group had faster performance times (66 s, 95% CI = 57-74) compared to the self-guided group (77 s, 95% CI = 67-86), (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in skill performance between groups. Residents who received deliberate practice and mastery learning demonstrated an improvement in skill performance time.

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
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
期刊最新文献
Just the facts: diagnosing and managing trigeminal neuralgia in the emergency department Letter to the editor: further opportunities for rapid HIV testing. Just the facts: management of thrombolytic complications in acute stroke care in the emergency department Anti-inflammatories as adjunct treatment for cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Replacing the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment—Alcohol revised with the modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for alcohol withdrawal to support management of alcohol withdrawal symptoms: potential impact on length of stay and complications
×
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