儿科急诊医学中使用虚拟复苏室的远程模拟与现场模拟的比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Pediatric emergency care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256
Michael Hrdy, Walter Faig, Dennis Ren, Brian Lee, Khoon-Yen Tay, Brittany Guttadauria, Pavan Zaveri, Megan Lavoie, Xian Zhao
{"title":"儿科急诊医学中使用虚拟复苏室的远程模拟与现场模拟的比较。","authors":"Michael Hrdy, Walter Faig, Dennis Ren, Brian Lee, Khoon-Yen Tay, Brittany Guttadauria, Pavan Zaveri, Megan Lavoie, Xian Zhao","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":"711-716"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Telesimulation Using the Virtual Resus Room and In Situ Simulation in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Hrdy, Walter Faig, Dennis Ren, Brian Lee, Khoon-Yen Tay, Brittany Guttadauria, Pavan Zaveri, Megan Lavoie, Xian Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"711-716\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,医学教育明显转向远程模拟。比较在线和离线模拟教育效果的研究有限。本研究的目的是评估积极学习者对远程模拟与现场模拟效果的感知,并找出现有在线教学平台的潜在缺陷:通过模拟后的参与者评估,我们比较了使用虚拟重症监护室(VRR)的远程模拟与现场模拟在以下方面的差异:(1)自我效能;(2)逼真度;(3)教育价值;以及(4)教学质量。研究对象包括在两家儿童医院完成儿科急诊医学轮转的住院医师、药剂师和医科学生,以及新近受聘并在急诊科适应新角色的护士、执业护士和助理医师。学员使用修改后的密歇根标准模拟体验量表对远程模拟或现场模拟案例进行评估。采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验对调查回答进行比较,并对多重比较进行 Bonferroni 校正:结果:在总体评估中,现场模拟的评分高于远程模拟。在真实感、培训设备相关技能的实用性和培训团队建设技能的实用性方面存在明显差异。所有 P 值均小于 0.0036。不同类型的模拟在体格检查的逼真度、教师的适当性和自我效能感方面没有明显差异:结论:在提高自我效能感和儿科急诊医学专题教学质量方面,使用 VRR 的远程模拟与现场模拟效果相当。然而,学员们认为虚拟练习触觉和交流技能的能力较弱。需要进一步创新,以提高学习者的体验真实性和教育价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Telesimulation Using the Virtual Resus Room and In Situ Simulation in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.

Methods: Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Results: In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.

Conclusions: Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.

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
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
×
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