Comparison of Web-Based and On-Site Lung Simulators for Education in Mechanical Ventilation.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Sami Safadi, Megan Acho, Stephanie I Maximous, Michael B Keller, Eric Kriner, Christian J Woods, Junfeng Sun, Bashar S Staitieh, Burton W Lee, Nitin Seam
{"title":"Comparison of Web-Based and On-Site Lung Simulators for Education in Mechanical Ventilation.","authors":"Sami Safadi, Megan Acho, Stephanie I Maximous, Michael B Keller, Eric Kriner, Christian J Woods, Junfeng Sun, Bashar S Staitieh, Burton W Lee, Nitin Seam","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Training in mechanical ventilation is a key goal in critical care fellowship education. Web-based simulators offer a cost-effective and readily available alternative to traditional on-site simulators. However, it is unclear how effective they are as teaching tools. In this study, we evaluated the test scores of fellows who underwent mechanical ventilation training by using a web-based simulator compared with fellows who used an on-site simulator during a mechanical ventilation course.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a nonrandomized controlled trial conducted as part of a mechanical ventilation course that involved 70 first-year critical care fellows. The course was identical except for the simulation technology used. One group of instructors used a traditional on-site simulator, the ASL 5000 Lung Solution (<i>n =</i> 39). The second group was instructed in using a web-based simulator, VentSim (<i>n =</i> 31). Each fellow completed a pre-course test and a post-course test by using a validated, case-based ventilator waveform examination that consisted of 5 questions with a total possible score of 100. The primary outcome was a comparison of the mean scores on the posttest between the 2 groups. The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a predetermined margin of 10 points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD pretest scores between the web-based and the on-site groups (21.1 ± 12.6 and 26.9 ± 13.6 respectively; <i>P</i> = .11). The mean ± SD posttest scores were 45.6 ± 25.0 for the web-based simulator and 43.4 ± 16.5 for on-site simulator (mean difference 2.2; one-sided 95% CI -7.0 to ∞; <i>P</i> <sub>non-inferiority</sub> = .02 [non-inferiority confirmed]). Changes in mean ± SD scores (posttest - pretest) were 25.9 ± 20.9 for the web-based simulator and 16.5 ± 15.9 for the on-site simulator (mean difference 9.4, one-sided 95% CI 0.9 to ∞; <i>P</i> <sub>non-inferiority</sub> < .001 [non-inferiority confirmed]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the education of first-year critical care fellows on mechanical ventilation waveform analysis, a web-based mechanical ventilation simulator was non-inferior to a traditional on-site mechanical ventilation simulator.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":"1353-1360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12072","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Training in mechanical ventilation is a key goal in critical care fellowship education. Web-based simulators offer a cost-effective and readily available alternative to traditional on-site simulators. However, it is unclear how effective they are as teaching tools. In this study, we evaluated the test scores of fellows who underwent mechanical ventilation training by using a web-based simulator compared with fellows who used an on-site simulator during a mechanical ventilation course.

Methods: This was a nonrandomized controlled trial conducted as part of a mechanical ventilation course that involved 70 first-year critical care fellows. The course was identical except for the simulation technology used. One group of instructors used a traditional on-site simulator, the ASL 5000 Lung Solution (n = 39). The second group was instructed in using a web-based simulator, VentSim (n = 31). Each fellow completed a pre-course test and a post-course test by using a validated, case-based ventilator waveform examination that consisted of 5 questions with a total possible score of 100. The primary outcome was a comparison of the mean scores on the posttest between the 2 groups. The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a predetermined margin of 10 points.

Results: There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD pretest scores between the web-based and the on-site groups (21.1 ± 12.6 and 26.9 ± 13.6 respectively; P = .11). The mean ± SD posttest scores were 45.6 ± 25.0 for the web-based simulator and 43.4 ± 16.5 for on-site simulator (mean difference 2.2; one-sided 95% CI -7.0 to ∞; P non-inferiority = .02 [non-inferiority confirmed]). Changes in mean ± SD scores (posttest - pretest) were 25.9 ± 20.9 for the web-based simulator and 16.5 ± 15.9 for the on-site simulator (mean difference 9.4, one-sided 95% CI 0.9 to ∞; P non-inferiority < .001 [non-inferiority confirmed]).

Conclusions: In the education of first-year critical care fellows on mechanical ventilation waveform analysis, a web-based mechanical ventilation simulator was non-inferior to a traditional on-site mechanical ventilation simulator.

基于网络的肺模拟器与现场肺模拟器在机械通气教育方面的比较。
背景:机械通气培训是重症监护研究员教育的一个重要目标。与传统的现场模拟器相比,基于网络的模拟器是一种经济实用且随时可用的替代品。然而,这些模拟器作为教学工具的效果如何尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们评估了在机械通气课程中使用网络模拟器接受机械通气培训的研究员与使用现场模拟器的研究员的考试分数:这是一项非随机对照试验,是机械通气课程的一部分,共有 70 名一年级重症监护研究员参加。除了所使用的模拟技术外,其他课程完全相同。一组教师使用传统的现场模拟器 ASL 5000 Lung Solution(n = 39)。第二组教师则指导学员使用网络模拟器 VentSim(31 人)。每位研究人员通过使用经过验证、基于病例的呼吸机波形检查完成课前测试和课后测试,该检查包括 5 个问题,总分为 100 分。主要结果是比较两组学员在课后测试中的平均得分。研究设计为非劣效性试验,预定差值为 10 分:网络组和现场组的前测平均分(± SD)无明显差异(分别为 21.1 ± 12.6 和 26.9 ± 13.6;P = .11)。网络模拟器的平均± SD 后测分数为 45.6 ± 25.0,现场模拟器的平均± SD 后测分数为 43.4 ± 16.5(平均差异 2.2;单侧 95% CI -7.0 至 ∞;P 非劣效性 = .02 [非劣效性确认])。网络模拟器的平均±SD分数变化(测试后-测试前)为 25.9 ± 20.9,现场模拟器为 16.5 ± 15.9(平均差异 9.4,单侧 95% CI 0.9 至 ∞;P 非劣效性 < .001 [非劣效性确认]):结论:在对一年级重症监护研究员进行机械通气波形分析教育时,基于网络的机械通气模拟器并不优于传统的现场机械通气模拟器。
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
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
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