Comparison of simulation and video-based training for acute asthma.
Acute asthma
High-fidelity simulation
Interactive video-case education
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2023
16 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
20
02
2023
accepted:
01
11
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
17
11
2023
entrez:
17
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Emergency medicine is particularly well suited to simulation training. However, evidence for the efficacy of simulation-based medical training remains limited especially to manage high-risk cases such as acute asthma. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of high-fidelity simulation (HFS) and interactive video-case challenge-based training (IVC) for final-year medical students in the management of acute asthma. This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted at the emergency department (ED) of Monastir University hospital ( Tunisia). 69 final-year medical students were randomized to HFS (n = 34) and IVC (n = 35) training on acute asthma topic. The study was conducted over a 1-week period. Efficacy of each teaching method was compared through the use of multiple-choice questionnaires (MCQ) before (pre-test), after (post-test) training and a simulation scenario test conducted 1 week later. The scenario was based on acute asthma management graded on predefined critical actions using two scores: the checklist clinical score (range 0 to 30), and the team skills score (range 0 to 16). Student satisfaction was also evaluated with the Likert 5 points scale. Two years after the post-test, both groups underwent a third MCQ testing to assess sustainability of knowledge. There were no differences in age between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the HFS and IVC groups pre-test scores (p = 0.07). Both groups demonstrated improvement in MCQ post-test from baseline after training session; the HFS MCQ post-test score increased significantly more than the IVC score (p < 0.001). The HFS group performed better than the IVC group on the acute asthma simulation scenario (p < 0.001). Mean checklist clinical score and mean team skills score were significantly higher in HFS group compared to IVC group (respectively 22.9 ± 4.8 and 11.5 ± 2.5 in HFS group vs 19.1 ± 3 and 8.4 ± 3.1 in IVC group) (p < 0.001). After 2 years, MCQ post-test scores decreased in both groups but the decrease was lower in HFS group compared to the IVC group. High-fidelity simulation-based training was superior to interactive video-case challenge for teaching final year medical students,and led to more long-term knowledge retention in the management of simulated acute asthma patients. The study was registered at www. gov NCT02776358 on 18/05/2016.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Emergency medicine is particularly well suited to simulation training. However, evidence for the efficacy of simulation-based medical training remains limited especially to manage high-risk cases such as acute asthma.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of our study was to compare the performance of high-fidelity simulation (HFS) and interactive video-case challenge-based training (IVC) for final-year medical students in the management of acute asthma.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted at the emergency department (ED) of Monastir University hospital ( Tunisia). 69 final-year medical students were randomized to HFS (n = 34) and IVC (n = 35) training on acute asthma topic. The study was conducted over a 1-week period. Efficacy of each teaching method was compared through the use of multiple-choice questionnaires (MCQ) before (pre-test), after (post-test) training and a simulation scenario test conducted 1 week later. The scenario was based on acute asthma management graded on predefined critical actions using two scores: the checklist clinical score (range 0 to 30), and the team skills score (range 0 to 16). Student satisfaction was also evaluated with the Likert 5 points scale. Two years after the post-test, both groups underwent a third MCQ testing to assess sustainability of knowledge.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were no differences in age between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the HFS and IVC groups pre-test scores (p = 0.07). Both groups demonstrated improvement in MCQ post-test from baseline after training session; the HFS MCQ post-test score increased significantly more than the IVC score (p < 0.001). The HFS group performed better than the IVC group on the acute asthma simulation scenario (p < 0.001). Mean checklist clinical score and mean team skills score were significantly higher in HFS group compared to IVC group (respectively 22.9 ± 4.8 and 11.5 ± 2.5 in HFS group vs 19.1 ± 3 and 8.4 ± 3.1 in IVC group) (p < 0.001). After 2 years, MCQ post-test scores decreased in both groups but the decrease was lower in HFS group compared to the IVC group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
High-fidelity simulation-based training was superior to interactive video-case challenge for teaching final year medical students,and led to more long-term knowledge retention in the management of simulated acute asthma patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The study was registered at www.
CLINICALTRIALS
RESULTS
gov NCT02776358 on 18/05/2016.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37974223
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04836-7
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04836-7
pmc: PMC10655321
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02776358']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
873Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Family Community Med. 2010 Jan;17(1):35-40
pubmed: 22022669
Open Nurs J. 2012;6:82-9
pubmed: 22893783
Med Educ. 2010 May;44(5):449-58
pubmed: 20518984
Nurse Educ. 2011 Mar-Apr;36(2):62-5
pubmed: 21330894
J Crit Care. 2007 Mar;22(1):51-5
pubmed: 17371747
Surg J (N Y). 2018 Aug 13;4(3):e136-e151
pubmed: 30109273
Anesthesiology. 1992 Apr;76(4):491-4
pubmed: 1550272
Anesthesiology. 2003 Dec;99(6):1270-80
pubmed: 14639138
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Sep 6;155(5):309-15
pubmed: 21747093
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):50-63
pubmed: 20078756
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Nov/Dec;42(6):741-750
pubmed: 28759501
Mt Sinai J Med. 2009 Aug;76(4):330-43
pubmed: 19642147
BMC Med Educ. 2005 Mar 09;5(1):10
pubmed: 15757520
PLoS One. 2009 Sep 23;4(9):e7103
pubmed: 19774078
Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2017 Jun 1;59(2):123-131
pubmed: 28704187
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008 Jul;36(4):565-9
pubmed: 18714627
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Feb;112(2):231-45
pubmed: 24368556
Clin Teach. 2010 Jun;7(2):102-5
pubmed: 21134157
Simul Healthc. 2007 Spring;2(1):4-10
pubmed: 19088602
Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):970-7
pubmed: 15043966
Crit Care Med. 2006 Jan;34(1):151-7
pubmed: 16374169
Med Educ. 2002 Sep;36(9):833-41
pubmed: 12354246
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jun 3;7(1):34
pubmed: 31555764
Acad Med. 2006 Oct;81(10 Suppl):S9-S12
pubmed: 17001145
J Surg Educ. 2010 Nov-Dec;67(6):439-43
pubmed: 21156305
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014 Dec;11(6):394-400
pubmed: 25213578
S Afr J Commun Disord. 2019 Jan 22;66(1):e1-e5
pubmed: 30843410
Med Educ. 2012 Apr;46(4):426-35
pubmed: 22429179
Simul Healthc. 2010 Feb;5(1):40-5
pubmed: 20383090
Circulation. 2018 Aug 7;138(6):e82-e122
pubmed: 29930020
Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Feb;20(2):117-27
pubmed: 23406070
J Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;40(4):448-55
pubmed: 20417055
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 May;19(5):608-12
pubmed: 22594369
J Crit Care. 2012 Apr;27(2):219.e7-13
pubmed: 22033049
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jun;43(6):1065-71
pubmed: 18558184
Crit Care Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):169-78
pubmed: 24220691
Emerg Med J. 2010 Oct;27(10):734-8
pubmed: 20852280
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):684-91
pubmed: 19394113
J Surg Educ. 2011 Nov-Dec;68(6):472-7
pubmed: 22000533
J Contin Educ Nurs. 2011 Jun;42(6):271-9
pubmed: 21425759
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Mar;21(3):251-6
pubmed: 16637824
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Sep 14;23(1):664
pubmed: 37710261