Educational outcomes of simulation-based training in regional anaesthesia: a scoping review.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Balakrishnan Ashokka, Lawrence Siu-Chun Law, Archana Areti, David Burckett-St Laurent, Roman Oliver Zuercher, Ki-Jinn Chin, Reva Ramlogan
{"title":"Educational outcomes of simulation-based training in regional anaesthesia: a scoping review.","authors":"Balakrishnan Ashokka, Lawrence Siu-Chun Law, Archana Areti, David Burckett-St Laurent, Roman Oliver Zuercher, Ki-Jinn Chin, Reva Ramlogan","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Structured training in regional anaesthesia includes pretraining on simulation-based educational platforms to establish a safe and controlled learning environment before learners are provided clinical exposure in an apprenticeship model. This scoping review was designed to appraise the educational outcomes of current simulation-based educational modalities in regional anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review conformed to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Relevant articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EMBASE with no date restrictions, until November 2023. Studies included randomised controlled trials, pre-post intervention, time series, case control, case series, and longitudinal studies, with no restrictions to settings, language or ethnic groups. The Kirkpatrick framework was applied for extraction of educational outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 28 studies, ranging from 2009 to 2023, of which 46.4% were randomised controlled trials. The majority of the target population was identified as trainees or residents (46.4%). Higher order educational outcomes that appraised translation to real clinical contexts (Kirkpatrick 3 and above) were reported in 12 studies (42.9%). Two studies demonstrated translational patient outcomes (Level 4) with reduced incidence of paraesthesia and clinical complications. The majority of studies appraised Level 3 outcomes of performance improvements in either laboratory simulation contexts (42.9%) or demonstration of clinical performance improvements in regional anaesthesia (39.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was significant heterogeneity in the types of simulation modalities used, teaching interventions applied, study methodologies, assessment tools, and outcome measures studied. When improvisations were made to regional anaesthesia simulation platforms (hybrid simulation), there were sustained educational improvements beyond 6 months. Newer technology-enhanced innovations such as virtual, augmented, and mixed reality simulations are evolving, with early reports of educational effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Structured training in regional anaesthesia includes pretraining on simulation-based educational platforms to establish a safe and controlled learning environment before learners are provided clinical exposure in an apprenticeship model. This scoping review was designed to appraise the educational outcomes of current simulation-based educational modalities in regional anaesthesia.

Methods: This review conformed to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Relevant articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and EMBASE with no date restrictions, until November 2023. Studies included randomised controlled trials, pre-post intervention, time series, case control, case series, and longitudinal studies, with no restrictions to settings, language or ethnic groups. The Kirkpatrick framework was applied for extraction of educational outcomes.

Results: We included 28 studies, ranging from 2009 to 2023, of which 46.4% were randomised controlled trials. The majority of the target population was identified as trainees or residents (46.4%). Higher order educational outcomes that appraised translation to real clinical contexts (Kirkpatrick 3 and above) were reported in 12 studies (42.9%). Two studies demonstrated translational patient outcomes (Level 4) with reduced incidence of paraesthesia and clinical complications. The majority of studies appraised Level 3 outcomes of performance improvements in either laboratory simulation contexts (42.9%) or demonstration of clinical performance improvements in regional anaesthesia (39.3%).

Conclusions: There was significant heterogeneity in the types of simulation modalities used, teaching interventions applied, study methodologies, assessment tools, and outcome measures studied. When improvisations were made to regional anaesthesia simulation platforms (hybrid simulation), there were sustained educational improvements beyond 6 months. Newer technology-enhanced innovations such as virtual, augmented, and mixed reality simulations are evolving, with early reports of educational effectiveness.

区域麻醉模拟培训的教育成果:范围界定综述。
背景:区域麻醉的结构化培训包括在模拟教育平台上进行预培训,以便在学员以学徒模式接触临床之前建立一个安全可控的学习环境。本范围综述旨在评估目前区域麻醉中基于模拟的教育模式的教育成果:本综述符合 PRISMA-ScR 指南。在 PubMed、Scopus、Google Scholar、Web of Science 和 EMBASE 中检索了相关文章,没有日期限制,直至 2023 年 11 月。研究包括随机对照试验、干预前-干预后、时间序列、病例对照、病例序列和纵向研究,对环境、语言或种族群体没有限制。采用柯克帕特里克框架提取教育成果:我们纳入了 28 项研究,研究时间从 2009 年到 2023 年不等,其中 46.4% 为随机对照试验。大部分目标人群被确定为受训人员或住院医师(46.4%)。有 12 项研究(42.9%)报告了评估转化到实际临床环境中的高阶教育成果(柯克帕特里克 3 级及以上)。有两项研究证明了对患者的转化成果(4 级),即降低了副麻痹和临床并发症的发生率。大多数研究评估了3级成果,即在实验室模拟环境下(42.9%)或区域麻醉临床表现改善(39.3%):结论:在所使用的模拟模式类型、应用的教学干预措施、研究方法、评估工具和研究结果衡量标准等方面存在明显的异质性。如果对区域麻醉模拟平台(混合模拟)进行改进,则在 6 个月后仍能持续改善教学效果。虚拟、增强和混合现实模拟等较新的技术增强型创新正在不断发展,早期报告显示了其教育效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信