Performance evaluation in pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation after clinical simulation: A quasi-experimental study

Q2 Social Sciences
Claudia Maria Baroni Fernandes , Eduardo Maranhão Gubert , Izabel Meister Coelho , Rafaella Fadel Friedlaender , Rosiane Guetter Mello
{"title":"Performance evaluation in pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation after clinical simulation: A quasi-experimental study","authors":"Claudia Maria Baroni Fernandes ,&nbsp;Eduardo Maranhão Gubert ,&nbsp;Izabel Meister Coelho ,&nbsp;Rafaella Fadel Friedlaender ,&nbsp;Rosiane Guetter Mello","doi":"10.1016/j.edumed.2024.100997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The objective is to evaluate the performance of medical and nursing residents on pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after training in simulations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Quantitative, quasi-experimental study, with an exploratory, descriptive approach that evaluates educational intervention. 16 groups of 5–7 professionals: Moment 0 (M0), simulation at the beginning; Moment 1 (M1), after M0 debriefing; Moment 2 (M2), approximately 3 months after M0. The research instrument was a pediatric cardiorespiratory arrest checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Invitation to 96 participants, resulting in 85 residents in M0 and M1; 58 residents in M2. In M0, one team got the immediate start of CPR correctly in M1, 50% of the teams got it right, and in M2, 75%. There was a significant difference in M0 and M1. In M0, 68.8% of the classes were icorrect about the compression depth; in M1, 18.8% made mistakes, and in M2, 75%. There was a significant difference in M0 and M1, M1 and M2. In M0, 75% were wrong regarding chest recoil; in M1, 25%, and in M2, still 25%. Statistically, there was a difference. Regarding the 15:2 ratio in compressions and ventilations, 37.5% made mistakes in M0; all scored in M1 (statistically significant difference); and, in M2, 1 group made mistakes. As for compression frequency, in M0 15 did not score, M1 50% errors (significant difference), and 66.7% erros in M2. Alarming data in rhythm check, defibrillation, antiarrhythmic drug, and intravenous access.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Simulations at shorter intervals than the average of 129 days seen in the study are recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35317,"journal":{"name":"Educacion Medica","volume":"26 2","pages":"Article 100997"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educacion Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1575181324001128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The objective is to evaluate the performance of medical and nursing residents on pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after training in simulations.

Methods

Quantitative, quasi-experimental study, with an exploratory, descriptive approach that evaluates educational intervention. 16 groups of 5–7 professionals: Moment 0 (M0), simulation at the beginning; Moment 1 (M1), after M0 debriefing; Moment 2 (M2), approximately 3 months after M0. The research instrument was a pediatric cardiorespiratory arrest checklist.

Results

Invitation to 96 participants, resulting in 85 residents in M0 and M1; 58 residents in M2. In M0, one team got the immediate start of CPR correctly in M1, 50% of the teams got it right, and in M2, 75%. There was a significant difference in M0 and M1. In M0, 68.8% of the classes were icorrect about the compression depth; in M1, 18.8% made mistakes, and in M2, 75%. There was a significant difference in M0 and M1, M1 and M2. In M0, 75% were wrong regarding chest recoil; in M1, 25%, and in M2, still 25%. Statistically, there was a difference. Regarding the 15:2 ratio in compressions and ventilations, 37.5% made mistakes in M0; all scored in M1 (statistically significant difference); and, in M2, 1 group made mistakes. As for compression frequency, in M0 15 did not score, M1 50% errors (significant difference), and 66.7% erros in M2. Alarming data in rhythm check, defibrillation, antiarrhythmic drug, and intravenous access.

Conclusion

Simulations at shorter intervals than the average of 129 days seen in the study are recommended.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educacion Medica
Educacion Medica Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Educación Médica, revista trimestral que se viene publicando desde 1998 es editada desde enero de 2003 por la Fundación Educación Médica. Pretende contribuir a la difusión de los estudios y trabajos que en este campo se están llevando a cabo en todo el mundo, pero de una manera especial en nuestro entorno. Los artículos de Educación Médica tratarán tanto sobre aspectos prácticos de la docencia en su día a día como sobre cuestiones más teóricas de la educación médica. Así mismo, la revista intentará proporcionar análisis y opiniones de expertos de reconocido prestigio internacional.
×
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