摘要:快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)掌握气道插管。

Q4 Medicine
Kirsten R Kim Sawtelle
{"title":"摘要:快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)掌握气道插管。","authors":"Kirsten R Kim Sawtelle","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation has become an integral part of health care education curricula that is used to teach a variety of topics, from emergency situations to physical diagnoses. Without further reinforcement, the skills learned through the simulation are subject to deterioration over time. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) is a teaching method that was developed to resist this deterioration and achieve mastery of skills. In RCDP, learners cycle through a series of high-intensity and fast-paced scenarios until performance mastery was achieved. The individualized feedback is optimized with a 2:1 learner: instructor ratio. The goal of RCDP is to ensure 100% competency and time-efficiency of learners' performances. This study examined two sub-types of RCDP-style teaching to determine retention after 6-months.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-day airway management course was conducted using RCDP to teach endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students using Medical Students as Simulations Educators (MSASE) as instructors. On Day 1, learners participated in 40-minute training sessions using a 2:1 ratio of learners to educators to practice intravenous induction into anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. Half the groups used an immediate-feedback (IF) RCDP approach while the other half used a delayed-feedback (DF) RCDP approach. Day 2 was completed 1 week later using similar methods. Learners participated in a 1-day simulation course in 6 months to assess retention (Day 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On Day 1, the IF group achieved mastery in fewer trials compared to the DF group (p = 0.004). The DF group required an average of 1.14 (CI = 0.845 - 1.433) trials until mastery, while the IF group required 0.516 (CI = 0.226 - 0.806) trials. The IF and DF groups demonstrated 98% knowledge and skills proficiency on Day 3, which is a significant increase from Day 1 and Day 2 scores of 92% and 88%, respectively. There was no significant difference in retention between the IF and DF groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RCDP is an effective teaching method to achieve mastery with performing endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students. There was no significant difference between immediate-feedback and delayed-feedback when retention of this clinical skill was reassessed at 6 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":39219,"journal":{"name":"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association","volume":"77 9","pages":"408"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"2024 Scholars' Research Symposium Abstract: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) to Master Airway Intubation.\",\"authors\":\"Kirsten R Kim Sawtelle\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation has become an integral part of health care education curricula that is used to teach a variety of topics, from emergency situations to physical diagnoses. Without further reinforcement, the skills learned through the simulation are subject to deterioration over time. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) is a teaching method that was developed to resist this deterioration and achieve mastery of skills. In RCDP, learners cycle through a series of high-intensity and fast-paced scenarios until performance mastery was achieved. The individualized feedback is optimized with a 2:1 learner: instructor ratio. The goal of RCDP is to ensure 100% competency and time-efficiency of learners' performances. This study examined two sub-types of RCDP-style teaching to determine retention after 6-months.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-day airway management course was conducted using RCDP to teach endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students using Medical Students as Simulations Educators (MSASE) as instructors. On Day 1, learners participated in 40-minute training sessions using a 2:1 ratio of learners to educators to practice intravenous induction into anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. Half the groups used an immediate-feedback (IF) RCDP approach while the other half used a delayed-feedback (DF) RCDP approach. Day 2 was completed 1 week later using similar methods. Learners participated in a 1-day simulation course in 6 months to assess retention (Day 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On Day 1, the IF group achieved mastery in fewer trials compared to the DF group (p = 0.004). The DF group required an average of 1.14 (CI = 0.845 - 1.433) trials until mastery, while the IF group required 0.516 (CI = 0.226 - 0.806) trials. The IF and DF groups demonstrated 98% knowledge and skills proficiency on Day 3, which is a significant increase from Day 1 and Day 2 scores of 92% and 88%, respectively. There was no significant difference in retention between the IF and DF groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RCDP is an effective teaching method to achieve mastery with performing endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students. There was no significant difference between immediate-feedback and delayed-feedback when retention of this clinical skill was reassessed at 6 months.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association\",\"volume\":\"77 9\",\"pages\":\"408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:模拟已成为医疗保健教育课程的一个组成部分,用于教授各种主题,从紧急情况到物理诊断。如果没有进一步的强化,通过模拟学到的技能就会随着时间的推移而退化。快速循环刻意练习(RCDP)是一种教学方法,是为了防止这种退化和实现技能的掌握而开发的。在RCDP中,学习者在一系列高强度和快节奏的场景中循环,直到达到表现精通。个性化反馈优化为2:1的学习者:教师比例。RCDP的目标是确保学习者100%的能力和时间效率。本研究考察了两种rcdp式教学的子类型,以确定6个月后的保留率。方法:以MSASE (medical students as Simulations Educators)为讲师,采用RCDP对二年级医学生进行为期两天的气管插管管理课程教学。在第一天,学习者参加了40分钟的培训课程,使用2:1的学习者与教育者的比例来练习静脉诱导麻醉和气管插管。一半的小组使用即时反馈(IF) RCDP方法,而另一半使用延迟反馈(DF) RCDP方法。第2天于1周后用相同方法完成。学习者在6个月内参加了为期1天的模拟课程,以评估记忆(第三天)。结果:在第一天,与DF组相比,IF组在更少的试验中掌握了知识(p = 0.004)。DF组平均需要1.14次(CI = 0.845 - 1.433)试验,而IF组平均需要0.516次(CI = 0.226 - 0.806)试验。第3天,IF组和DF组的知识和技能熟练程度达到98%,比第1天和第2天的分数分别提高了92%和88%。IF组和DF组之间的保留率无显著差异。结论:RCDP是医二学生熟练掌握气管插管的有效教学方法。当6个月时重新评估这种临床技能的保留情况时,即时反馈和延迟反馈之间没有显着差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
2024 Scholars' Research Symposium Abstract: Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) to Master Airway Intubation.

Introduction: Simulation has become an integral part of health care education curricula that is used to teach a variety of topics, from emergency situations to physical diagnoses. Without further reinforcement, the skills learned through the simulation are subject to deterioration over time. Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) is a teaching method that was developed to resist this deterioration and achieve mastery of skills. In RCDP, learners cycle through a series of high-intensity and fast-paced scenarios until performance mastery was achieved. The individualized feedback is optimized with a 2:1 learner: instructor ratio. The goal of RCDP is to ensure 100% competency and time-efficiency of learners' performances. This study examined two sub-types of RCDP-style teaching to determine retention after 6-months.

Methods: A two-day airway management course was conducted using RCDP to teach endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students using Medical Students as Simulations Educators (MSASE) as instructors. On Day 1, learners participated in 40-minute training sessions using a 2:1 ratio of learners to educators to practice intravenous induction into anesthesia and endotracheal intubation. Half the groups used an immediate-feedback (IF) RCDP approach while the other half used a delayed-feedback (DF) RCDP approach. Day 2 was completed 1 week later using similar methods. Learners participated in a 1-day simulation course in 6 months to assess retention (Day 3).

Results: On Day 1, the IF group achieved mastery in fewer trials compared to the DF group (p = 0.004). The DF group required an average of 1.14 (CI = 0.845 - 1.433) trials until mastery, while the IF group required 0.516 (CI = 0.226 - 0.806) trials. The IF and DF groups demonstrated 98% knowledge and skills proficiency on Day 3, which is a significant increase from Day 1 and Day 2 scores of 92% and 88%, respectively. There was no significant difference in retention between the IF and DF groups.

Conclusions: RCDP is an effective teaching method to achieve mastery with performing endotracheal intubation to second-year medical students. There was no significant difference between immediate-feedback and delayed-feedback when retention of this clinical skill was reassessed at 6 months.

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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
×
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