Evaluation of a Mobile Telesimulation Unit to Train Rural and Remote Practitioners on High-Acuity Low-Occurrence Procedures: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.


Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 08 2019
Historique:
received: 06 05 2019
accepted: 05 07 2019
revised: 04 07 2019
entrez: 8 8 2019
pubmed: 8 8 2019
medline: 2 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The provision of acute medical care in rural and remote areas presents unique challenges for practitioners. Therefore, a tailored approach to training providers would prove beneficial. Although simulation-based medical education (SBME) has been shown to be effective, access to such training can be difficult and costly in rural and remote areas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational efficacy of simulation-based training of an acute care procedure delivered remotely, using a portable, self-contained unit outfitted with off-the-shelf and low-cost telecommunications equipment (mobile telesimulation unit, MTU), versus the traditional face-to-face approach. A conceptual framework based on a combination of Kirkpatrick's Learning Evaluation Model and Miller's Clinical Assessment Framework was used. A written procedural skills test was used to assess Miller's learning level- knows-at 3 points in time: preinstruction, immediately postinstruction, and 1 week later. To assess procedural performance (shows how), participants were video recorded performing chest tube insertion before and after hands-on supervised training. A modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklist and a Global Rating Scale (GRS) of operative performance were used by a blinded rater to assess participants' performance. Kirkpatrick's reaction was measured through subject completion of a survey on satisfaction with the learning experiences and an evaluation of training. A total of 69 medical students participated in the study. Students were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: comparison (25/69, 36%), intervention (23/69, 33%), or control (21/69, 31%). For knows, as expected, no significant differences were found between the groups on written knowledge (posttest, P=.13). For shows how, no significant differences were found between the comparison and intervention groups on the procedural skills learning outcomes immediately after the training (OSATS checklist and GRS, P=1.00). However, significant differences were found for the control versus comparison groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.02) and the control versus intervention groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.01) on the pre- and postprocedural performance. For reaction, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and comparison groups on the satisfaction with learning items (P=.65 and P=.79) or the evaluation of the training (P=.79, P=.45, and P=.31). Our results demonstrate that simulation-based training delivered remotely, applying our MTU concept, can be an effective way to teach procedural skills. Participants trained remotely in the MTU had comparable learning outcomes (shows how) to those trained face-to-face. Both groups received statistically significant higher procedural performance scores than those in the control group. Participants in both instruction groups were equally satisfied with their learning and training (reaction). We believe that mobile telesimulation could be an effective way of providing expert mentorship and overcoming a number of barriers to delivering SBME in rural and remote locations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The provision of acute medical care in rural and remote areas presents unique challenges for practitioners. Therefore, a tailored approach to training providers would prove beneficial. Although simulation-based medical education (SBME) has been shown to be effective, access to such training can be difficult and costly in rural and remote areas.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational efficacy of simulation-based training of an acute care procedure delivered remotely, using a portable, self-contained unit outfitted with off-the-shelf and low-cost telecommunications equipment (mobile telesimulation unit, MTU), versus the traditional face-to-face approach. A conceptual framework based on a combination of Kirkpatrick's Learning Evaluation Model and Miller's Clinical Assessment Framework was used.
METHODS
A written procedural skills test was used to assess Miller's learning level- knows-at 3 points in time: preinstruction, immediately postinstruction, and 1 week later. To assess procedural performance (shows how), participants were video recorded performing chest tube insertion before and after hands-on supervised training. A modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklist and a Global Rating Scale (GRS) of operative performance were used by a blinded rater to assess participants' performance. Kirkpatrick's reaction was measured through subject completion of a survey on satisfaction with the learning experiences and an evaluation of training.
RESULTS
A total of 69 medical students participated in the study. Students were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: comparison (25/69, 36%), intervention (23/69, 33%), or control (21/69, 31%). For knows, as expected, no significant differences were found between the groups on written knowledge (posttest, P=.13). For shows how, no significant differences were found between the comparison and intervention groups on the procedural skills learning outcomes immediately after the training (OSATS checklist and GRS, P=1.00). However, significant differences were found for the control versus comparison groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.02) and the control versus intervention groups (OSATS checklist, P<.001; GRS, P=.01) on the pre- and postprocedural performance. For reaction, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and comparison groups on the satisfaction with learning items (P=.65 and P=.79) or the evaluation of the training (P=.79, P=.45, and P=.31).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate that simulation-based training delivered remotely, applying our MTU concept, can be an effective way to teach procedural skills. Participants trained remotely in the MTU had comparable learning outcomes (shows how) to those trained face-to-face. Both groups received statistically significant higher procedural performance scores than those in the control group. Participants in both instruction groups were equally satisfied with their learning and training (reaction). We believe that mobile telesimulation could be an effective way of providing expert mentorship and overcoming a number of barriers to delivering SBME in rural and remote locations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31389340
pii: v21i8e14587
doi: 10.2196/14587
pmc: PMC6701160
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e14587

Informations de copyright

©Jennifer Jewer, Michael H Parsons, Cody Dunne, Andrew Smith, Adam Dubrowski. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.08.2019.

Références

Can Med Educ J. 2018 Mar 27;9(1):e1-e5
pubmed: 30140329
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 21;20(5):e195
pubmed: 29784634
Trials. 2017 Feb 6;18(1):56
pubmed: 28166840
Can Med Educ J. 2018 Mar 27;9(1):e87-e99
pubmed: 30140340
Med Teach. 2005 Jan;27(1):10-28
pubmed: 16147767
Am J Surg. 1997 Mar;173(3):226-30
pubmed: 9124632
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 11;357(15):e15
pubmed: 17928590
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2017 Aug;33(8):564-569
pubmed: 27261952
Simul Healthc. 2013 Aug;8(4):253-61
pubmed: 23508094
Nurse Educ Today. 2014 Oct;34(10):1298-304
pubmed: 25066650
J Surg Res. 2007 Oct;142(2):246-9
pubmed: 17631907
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Feb;12(2):213-21
pubmed: 17926105
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul;27(7):2606-12
pubmed: 23389073
Surgery. 2013 Feb;153(2):160-76
pubmed: 22884087
JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):978-88
pubmed: 21900138
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Sep;38(3):323-7
pubmed: 11524654
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012 Fall;32(4):243-54
pubmed: 23280527
Pain Res Manag. 2011 Nov-Dec;16(6):407-10
pubmed: 22184548
J Trauma Stress. 2008 Oct;21(5):433-9
pubmed: 18956449
Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4033-7
pubmed: 24018759
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2009 Mar;10(2):176-81
pubmed: 19188878
Simul Healthc. 2012 Feb;7(1):35-9
pubmed: 22228281
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2011 May;12(3):e141-4
pubmed: 20921919
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016 Oct;31(5):465-70
pubmed: 27530816
Mil Med. 2001 Nov;166(11):1003-6
pubmed: 11725312
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jun;85(6):1170-2
pubmed: 12784026
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;18(4):420-7
pubmed: 21496146
Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):783-8
pubmed: 12915366
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):988-94
pubmed: 18778378
Intern Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;11(6):837-41
pubmed: 26861702
Telemed J E Health. 2012 Sep;18(7):525-9
pubmed: 22827475
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009 Winter;29(1):1-15
pubmed: 19288562

Auteurs

Jennifer Jewer (J)

Faculty of Business, Memorial University, St John's, NL, Canada.

Michael H Parsons (MH)

Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, NL, Canada.

Cody Dunne (C)

Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, NL, Canada.

Andrew Smith (A)

Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, NL, Canada.

Adam Dubrowski (A)

Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH