Astrid Karina V Harring, Jo Røislien, Karianne Larsen, Mona Guterud, Helge Fagerheim Bugge, Else Charlotte Sandset, Dorte V Kristensen, Maren Ranhoff Hov
{"title":"美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)游戏化模拟训练的可行性研究。","authors":"Astrid Karina V Harring, Jo Røislien, Karianne Larsen, Mona Guterud, Helge Fagerheim Bugge, Else Charlotte Sandset, Dorte V Kristensen, Maren Ranhoff Hov","doi":"10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).</p>","PeriodicalId":72108,"journal":{"name":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","volume":"8 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamification of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) for simulation training-a feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"Astrid Karina V Harring, Jo Røislien, Karianne Larsen, Mona Guterud, Helge Fagerheim Bugge, Else Charlotte Sandset, Dorte V Kristensen, Maren Ranhoff Hov\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9945669/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in simulation (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in simulation (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00245-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:培训院前人员识别急性脑卒中患者是提供快速治疗的关键。本研究旨在探讨基于游戏的数字模拟训练是否可以替代标准的现场模拟训练。方法:邀请挪威奥斯陆城市大学二年级护理本科学生参加一项研究,将基于游戏的数字模拟(干预)与标准的面对面培训(对照)进行比较。在2个月的时间里,学生们被鼓励练习NIHSS,两组都记录了他们的模拟。然后,他们进行了临床熟练程度测试,并使用Bland-Altman图评估他们的结果,该图具有相应的95%一致限(LoA)。结果:50名学生参与研究。游戏组(n = 23)的个体平均花费42:36分钟(36分钟)在游戏上,平均进行14.4次(13次)模拟,而对照组(n = 27)的个体平均花费9:28分钟(8分钟)模拟,进行2.5次(1次)模拟。比较干预期间收集的时间变量,游戏组每次模拟评估的平均时间显著缩短(2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004)。在最终的临床熟练度测试中,游戏组与真实NIHSS得分的平均差异为0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 ~ 2.67),对照组与真实NIHSS得分的平均差异为0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 ~ 3.02)。结论:基于游戏的数字模拟训练是标准的现场模拟训练的可行替代方案,可获得NIHSS评估能力。游戏化似乎给了人们更多的动机去模拟,并以同样的准确性更快地进行评估。试验注册:该研究由挪威研究数据中心批准(参考号:543238)。
Gamification of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) for simulation training-a feasibility study.
Background: Training prehospital personnel in identifying patients with acute stroke is key to providing rapid treatment. This study aimed to investigate whether game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training.
Methods: Second-year paramedic bachelor students at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway were invited to participate in a study to compare game-based digital simulation (intervention) to standard in-person training (control). For 2 months, students were encouraged to practice the NIHSS, and both groups logged their simulations. Then, they performed a clinical proficiency test, and their results were assessed using a Bland-Altman plot with corresponding 95% limits of agreement (LoA).
Results: Fifty students participated in the study. Individuals in the game group (n = 23) spent an average (SD) of 42:36 min (36) on gaming and performed 14.4 (13) simulations on average, whereas the control group (n = 27) spent 9:28 min (8) simulating and performed 2.5 (1) simulations. Comparing time variables collected during the intervention period, the mean time for each simulated assessment was significantly shorter in the game group (2:57 min vs. 3:50 min, p = 0.004). In the final clinical proficiency test, the mean difference from the true NIHSS score was 0.64 (LoA: - 1.38 to 2.67) in the game group and 0.69 (LoA: - 1.65 to 3.02) in the control group.
Conclusion: Game-based digital simulation training is a feasible alternative to standard in-person simulation training to acquire competence in NIHSS assessment. Gamification seemed to give an incentive to simulate considerably more and to perform the assessment faster, with equal accuracy.
Trial registration: The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 543238).