Rapid cycle deliberate practice: a complement to clinical exposure in critical care education.

IF 1.9 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Bruno Manetti Previero, Ana Spataru, Ruxandra Pinto, Dominique Piquette
{"title":"Rapid cycle deliberate practice: a complement to clinical exposure in critical care education.","authors":"Bruno Manetti Previero, Ana Spataru, Ruxandra Pinto, Dominique Piquette","doi":"10.1093/atsscholar/aapaf003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is an emerging simulation technique that differs from traditional simulation by providing opportunities for shorter and more frequent cycles of practice and feedback.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore whether RCDP-based weekly simulations during a 4-week Intensive Care Unit (ICU) rotation helped at least 80% of residents and medical students rotating in the intensive care unit achieve a minimum of 80% of key clinical tasks expected from physicians initially caring for acutely deteriorating inpatients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational study consisted of delivering 3 weekly RCDP-based small-group simulation sessions, followed by one individual formative simulation-based assessment, repeated monthly. Learner performance during the formative assessment was measured with a checklist containing 22 key clinical tasks previously practiced during the RCDP-based simulations. The primary outcome was learner performance score expressed as the proportion of successfully completed clinical tasks during the assessment simulation. Secondary outcomes included attendance, RCDP acceptability, and perceived psychological safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average attendance to the RCDP sessions was 77% among available learners (residents and medical students). Ten out of the 23 learners (43%; 95% CI, 23-64) assessed at the end of the rotation performed more than 80% of the clinical behaviors. The overall mean performance score of all learners was 77% (95% CI, 73-80). Most of the learners perceived RCPD as educationally valuable and psychologically safe.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the targeted performance outcome was not achieved, learners who participated in RCDP-based simulations demonstrated, during their assessment, important skills not consistently practiced during short ICU clinical rotations at the study institution. RCDP-based simulations identified areas for curriculum improvements and were also perceived as valuable and safe educational tools by learners.</p>","PeriodicalId":72330,"journal":{"name":"ATS scholar","volume":"7 1","pages":"60-66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13048453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATS scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/atsscholar/aapaf003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is an emerging simulation technique that differs from traditional simulation by providing opportunities for shorter and more frequent cycles of practice and feedback.

Objectives: To explore whether RCDP-based weekly simulations during a 4-week Intensive Care Unit (ICU) rotation helped at least 80% of residents and medical students rotating in the intensive care unit achieve a minimum of 80% of key clinical tasks expected from physicians initially caring for acutely deteriorating inpatients.

Methods: This prospective, observational study consisted of delivering 3 weekly RCDP-based small-group simulation sessions, followed by one individual formative simulation-based assessment, repeated monthly. Learner performance during the formative assessment was measured with a checklist containing 22 key clinical tasks previously practiced during the RCDP-based simulations. The primary outcome was learner performance score expressed as the proportion of successfully completed clinical tasks during the assessment simulation. Secondary outcomes included attendance, RCDP acceptability, and perceived psychological safety.

Results: The average attendance to the RCDP sessions was 77% among available learners (residents and medical students). Ten out of the 23 learners (43%; 95% CI, 23-64) assessed at the end of the rotation performed more than 80% of the clinical behaviors. The overall mean performance score of all learners was 77% (95% CI, 73-80). Most of the learners perceived RCPD as educationally valuable and psychologically safe.

Conclusions: Although the targeted performance outcome was not achieved, learners who participated in RCDP-based simulations demonstrated, during their assessment, important skills not consistently practiced during short ICU clinical rotations at the study institution. RCDP-based simulations identified areas for curriculum improvements and were also perceived as valuable and safe educational tools by learners.

快速循环刻意练习:对危重病教育中临床暴露的补充。
背景:快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)是一种新兴的模拟技术,与传统的模拟不同,它提供了更短、更频繁的练习和反馈周期的机会。目的:探讨在为期4周的重症监护病房(ICU)轮转期间,基于rcdp的每周模拟是否帮助至少80%的重症监护病房住院医师和医学生完成了至少80%的关键临床任务,这些任务是最初照顾急性恶化住院患者的医生所期望的。方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究包括每周进行3次基于rcdp的小组模拟会议,随后进行一次基于个体形成性模拟的评估,每月重复一次。学习者在形成性评估中的表现是用包含22个关键临床任务的检查表来衡量的,这些任务是在基于rcdp的模拟中进行的。主要结果是学习者表现分数,表示为在评估模拟期间成功完成临床任务的比例。次要结局包括出勤率、RCDP可接受性和感知心理安全性。结果:在可用的学习者(住院医师和医学生)中,RCDP课程的平均出勤率为77%。在轮转结束时评估的23名学习者中有10名(43%;95% CI, 23-64)完成了超过80%的临床行为。所有学习者的总体平均表现得分为77% (95% CI, 73-80)。大多数学习者认为RCPD具有教育价值和心理安全。结论:虽然没有达到目标的表现结果,但参与基于rcdp的模拟的学习者在评估期间证明,在研究机构的ICU短期临床轮转期间没有始终练习重要技能。基于rcdp的模拟确定了课程改进的领域,也被学习者视为有价值和安全的教育工具。
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
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书