课程创新:多真实才算真实?

Catherine Albin, E. Petrusa, James A. Gordon, Deepa Malaiyandi, Sahar F. Zafar
{"title":"课程创新:多真实才算真实?","authors":"Catherine Albin, E. Petrusa, James A. Gordon, Deepa Malaiyandi, Sahar F. Zafar","doi":"10.1212/ne9.0000000000200004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simulation training has been increasingly adopted in neurology as an engaging way to promote active learning in a safe environment while offering a reproducible platform for real-time feedback. However, despite the increase in simulation programs, there remains uncertainty about which type of high-fidelity platform would best promote trainee knowledge and confidence acquisition. The objective of this study is to investigate whether increases in resident knowledge and confidence differ when a simulation course for acute neurology emergencies uses a standardized patient vs a manikin-video format. We also investigated trainees' management deviations from the treatment guidelines.Over 5 sessions, 20 junior neurology residents participated in a simulation training course in which they managed 3 neurologic emergencies: right middle cerebral artery stroke, status epilepticus, and pontine hemorrhage causing coma. Residents in the standardized patient group interacted with a live actor for the cases in which the patient was conscious. Residents in the manikin-video group interacted with a manikin for all 3 cases. Before and after the course, residents completed a 40-question multiple-choice test and a survey about their self-perceived confidence in handling 15 neurologic emergencies. To create an element of internal validity, 9 items were represented in the course curriculum and 6 were not. During the simulation, a detailed behavior checklist was used to assess decision-making and guideline adherence. All residents answered items about the educational quality of the simulation sessions.Residents had significantly higher scores on the knowledge assessment after the training session (pre: 49% vs post: 72%,p< 0.001, effect size 91%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups—each increasing 23% (p= 0.977). Regardless of group assignment, the median self-reported confidence score improved by 1 point on a Likert scale across the topics taught in the course. The behavior checklist demonstrated significant variations in treatment practices and provided targeted areas for feedback and teaching.This pilot study suggests that trainees' knowledge and confidence in the management of neurologic emergencies increase after simulated encounters, regardless of whether a live actor or manikin simulation platforms is used. The use of a behavior checklist uncovered important variations in guideline adherence among novice physicians.","PeriodicalId":273801,"journal":{"name":"Neurology: Education","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Curriculum Innovations: How Real Is Real Enough?\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Albin, E. Petrusa, James A. Gordon, Deepa Malaiyandi, Sahar F. Zafar\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/ne9.0000000000200004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Simulation training has been increasingly adopted in neurology as an engaging way to promote active learning in a safe environment while offering a reproducible platform for real-time feedback. However, despite the increase in simulation programs, there remains uncertainty about which type of high-fidelity platform would best promote trainee knowledge and confidence acquisition. The objective of this study is to investigate whether increases in resident knowledge and confidence differ when a simulation course for acute neurology emergencies uses a standardized patient vs a manikin-video format. We also investigated trainees' management deviations from the treatment guidelines.Over 5 sessions, 20 junior neurology residents participated in a simulation training course in which they managed 3 neurologic emergencies: right middle cerebral artery stroke, status epilepticus, and pontine hemorrhage causing coma. Residents in the standardized patient group interacted with a live actor for the cases in which the patient was conscious. Residents in the manikin-video group interacted with a manikin for all 3 cases. Before and after the course, residents completed a 40-question multiple-choice test and a survey about their self-perceived confidence in handling 15 neurologic emergencies. To create an element of internal validity, 9 items were represented in the course curriculum and 6 were not. During the simulation, a detailed behavior checklist was used to assess decision-making and guideline adherence. All residents answered items about the educational quality of the simulation sessions.Residents had significantly higher scores on the knowledge assessment after the training session (pre: 49% vs post: 72%,p< 0.001, effect size 91%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups—each increasing 23% (p= 0.977). Regardless of group assignment, the median self-reported confidence score improved by 1 point on a Likert scale across the topics taught in the course. The behavior checklist demonstrated significant variations in treatment practices and provided targeted areas for feedback and teaching.This pilot study suggests that trainees' knowledge and confidence in the management of neurologic emergencies increase after simulated encounters, regardless of whether a live actor or manikin simulation platforms is used. The use of a behavior checklist uncovered important variations in guideline adherence among novice physicians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":273801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology: Education\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology: Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/ne9.0000000000200004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology: Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/ne9.0000000000200004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

神经学越来越多地采用模拟训练作为在安全环境中促进主动学习的一种有吸引力的方式,同时为实时反馈提供了一个可复制的平台。然而,尽管模拟项目有所增加,但仍不确定哪种类型的高保真平台最能促进学员的知识和信心获取。本研究的目的是调查急性神经紧急情况模拟课程使用标准化患者与人体模型视频格式时,住院医师知识和信心的增加是否有所不同。我们还调查了学员对治疗指南的管理偏差。20名初级神经内科住院医师参加了5次模拟培训课程,在此课程中,他们处理了3种神经急症:右大脑中动脉中风、癫痫持续状态和脑桥出血引起的昏迷。标准化病人组的住院医生在病人有意识的情况下与真人演员互动。人体模型视频组的居民在这三种情况下都与人体模型进行了互动。在课程之前和之后,住院医生完成了一项40道选择题的测试和一项关于他们在处理15个神经紧急情况时的自我认知信心的调查。为了创造一个内部效度的元素,课程课程中有9个项目,6个没有。在模拟过程中,使用详细的行为检查表来评估决策和指南遵守情况。所有住院医师都回答了有关模拟课程教学质量的问题。住院医师在培训后的知识评估得分显著提高(培训前:49% vs培训后:72%,p< 0.001,效应量91%)。两组间差异无统计学意义,均增加23% (p= 0.977)。无论小组分配如何,自我报告的自信得分中位数在课程所教主题的李克特量表上提高了1分。行为检查表显示了治疗实践的显著差异,并提供了有针对性的反馈和教学领域。这项初步研究表明,无论是使用真人演员还是人体模拟平台,学员在模拟遭遇后,对神经系统紧急情况管理的知识和信心都有所增加。行为检查表的使用揭示了新手医生在指南依从性方面的重要变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Curriculum Innovations: How Real Is Real Enough?
Simulation training has been increasingly adopted in neurology as an engaging way to promote active learning in a safe environment while offering a reproducible platform for real-time feedback. However, despite the increase in simulation programs, there remains uncertainty about which type of high-fidelity platform would best promote trainee knowledge and confidence acquisition. The objective of this study is to investigate whether increases in resident knowledge and confidence differ when a simulation course for acute neurology emergencies uses a standardized patient vs a manikin-video format. We also investigated trainees' management deviations from the treatment guidelines.Over 5 sessions, 20 junior neurology residents participated in a simulation training course in which they managed 3 neurologic emergencies: right middle cerebral artery stroke, status epilepticus, and pontine hemorrhage causing coma. Residents in the standardized patient group interacted with a live actor for the cases in which the patient was conscious. Residents in the manikin-video group interacted with a manikin for all 3 cases. Before and after the course, residents completed a 40-question multiple-choice test and a survey about their self-perceived confidence in handling 15 neurologic emergencies. To create an element of internal validity, 9 items were represented in the course curriculum and 6 were not. During the simulation, a detailed behavior checklist was used to assess decision-making and guideline adherence. All residents answered items about the educational quality of the simulation sessions.Residents had significantly higher scores on the knowledge assessment after the training session (pre: 49% vs post: 72%,p< 0.001, effect size 91%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups—each increasing 23% (p= 0.977). Regardless of group assignment, the median self-reported confidence score improved by 1 point on a Likert scale across the topics taught in the course. The behavior checklist demonstrated significant variations in treatment practices and provided targeted areas for feedback and teaching.This pilot study suggests that trainees' knowledge and confidence in the management of neurologic emergencies increase after simulated encounters, regardless of whether a live actor or manikin simulation platforms is used. The use of a behavior checklist uncovered important variations in guideline adherence among novice physicians.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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