Use of an observer tool to enhance learning of anaesthesia resident's non-technical skills during high-fidelity simulation: a randomised controlled trial.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Caroline Havard, Viridiana Jouffroy, Agnès Le Gouez, Marie Bruyère, Samy Figueiredo, Philippe Roulleau, Dan Benhamou, Aurore Margat, Antonia Blanié
{"title":"Use of an observer tool to enhance learning of anaesthesia resident's non-technical skills during high-fidelity simulation: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Caroline Havard, Viridiana Jouffroy, Agnès Le Gouez, Marie Bruyère, Samy Figueiredo, Philippe Roulleau, Dan Benhamou, Aurore Margat, Antonia Blanié","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-06608-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of an observer tool (OT) has been shown to improve learning of technical skills through observation in simulation. The objective was to assess the impact of a non-technical OT on anaesthesia residents' learning of non-technical skills (NTS) during simulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After consent, residents were randomised into 2 groups: OT+ (with an OT based on NTS to be systematically completed during observation of others) and OT- (without OT). Both groups observed a high-fidelity simulation of crisis management (with or without OT), then were asked to perform actively another simulation. The primary outcome was NTS performance, assessed by an evaluator using the Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills score (ANTS score out of 16) on video recording. Secondary outcomes were results of score items, satisfaction, team performance, and professional impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was found between OT + group (n = 33) and OT- group (n = 30) for the ANTS score (OT + 12 [9.5-12.5], OT- 10.5 [8.75-12]/16 (p = 0.13)). Among sub-items of the ANTS score, decision-making was significantly better in the OT + group (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], p = 0.01). Satisfaction, team performance and perception of professional impact were not significantly different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study showed no significant difference in learning of observational anaesthesia resident's NTS whether or not they were provided a non-technical OT during crisis management simulation. Decision-making was better with an OT. Further work is necessary to define the place of OT in observer-based learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749093/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06608-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of an observer tool (OT) has been shown to improve learning of technical skills through observation in simulation. The objective was to assess the impact of a non-technical OT on anaesthesia residents' learning of non-technical skills (NTS) during simulation.

Methods: After consent, residents were randomised into 2 groups: OT+ (with an OT based on NTS to be systematically completed during observation of others) and OT- (without OT). Both groups observed a high-fidelity simulation of crisis management (with or without OT), then were asked to perform actively another simulation. The primary outcome was NTS performance, assessed by an evaluator using the Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills score (ANTS score out of 16) on video recording. Secondary outcomes were results of score items, satisfaction, team performance, and professional impact.

Results: No significant difference was found between OT + group (n = 33) and OT- group (n = 30) for the ANTS score (OT + 12 [9.5-12.5], OT- 10.5 [8.75-12]/16 (p = 0.13)). Among sub-items of the ANTS score, decision-making was significantly better in the OT + group (3 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3], p = 0.01). Satisfaction, team performance and perception of professional impact were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions: This study showed no significant difference in learning of observational anaesthesia resident's NTS whether or not they were provided a non-technical OT during crisis management simulation. Decision-making was better with an OT. Further work is necessary to define the place of OT in observer-based learning.

使用观察者工具在高保真模拟期间增强麻醉住院医师非技术技能的学习:一项随机对照试验。
背景:观察者工具(OT)的使用已被证明可以通过模拟观察来提高技术技能的学习。目的是评估非技术OT对麻醉住院医师在模拟过程中学习非技术技能(NTS)的影响。方法:经同意后,将住院患者随机分为两组:OT+(在观察他人的过程中系统地完成基于NTS的OT)和OT-(不进行OT)。两组都观察了一个高保真的危机管理模拟(有或没有OT),然后被要求积极地进行另一个模拟。主要结果是NTS的表现,由评估者使用视频记录的麻醉非技术技能评分(ANTS评分为16分)进行评估。次要结果是得分项目、满意度、团队绩效和专业影响的结果。结果:OT +组(n = 33)与OT-组(n = 30)的ANTS评分(OT + 12 [9.5 ~ 12.5] /16, OT- 10.5 [8.75 ~ 12]/16, p = 0.13)差异无统计学意义。在ANTS分项评分中,OT +组的决策能力显著优于OT +组(3[2-3]比2 [2-3],p = 0.01)。满意度、团队绩效和职业影响感知在组间无显著差异。结论:本研究显示,在危机管理模拟过程中,是否提供非技术OT,住院医师观察麻醉的NTS学习无显著差异。OT的决策效果更好。需要进一步的工作来确定OT在基于观察者的学习中的地位。
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
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
×
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