高保真模拟对灌注学生氧合器更换性能的影响。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Julie Collins, Alexis Voitik, Alexander R Leonor, Luke T Juricek, Makenna Ellis, Ramandeep Kaur, Allison Weinberg
{"title":"高保真模拟对灌注学生氧合器更换性能的影响。","authors":"Julie Collins, Alexis Voitik, Alexander R Leonor, Luke T Juricek, Makenna Ellis, Ramandeep Kaur, Allison Weinberg","doi":"10.1177/02676591251331159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundSimulation is increasingly utilized in the clinical training of healthcare professionals. Many perfusion programs in the United States use simulation to teach students both technical skills and effective communication. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the optimal timing for introducing simulation into the curriculum and how to assess students' competencies. This study aims to evaluate whether combining simulation with didactic education is more effective than didactic education alone for learning perfusion-specific tasks, such as oxygenator changeouts.MethodsThis was a pilot, randomized controlled study conducted during November 2020. Subjects who were in their first year and enrolled in a cardiovascular perfusion program at the university were included. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive didactic education alone (control) or didactic in combination with the simulation training (experimental). Both groups received the didactic portion of the oxygenator change out procedure and the experimental group received supplemental simulation training. The primary outcome was oxygenator change-out completion time (recorded in minutes and seconds) to identify and change-out an oxygenator in a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. The secondary outcome was total communication score and subject's overall performance assessment using the scoring system referenced by Burkhart et al.ResultsThe experimental group (<i>n</i> = 8) performed the oxygenator change-out significantly faster (363.63 ± 87.1 seconds vs 558.11 ± 185.75 seconds, <i>p</i> = .016) as compared to the control group (<i>n</i> = 9). However, there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups in overall communication skills (<i>p</i> = .152) or the scoring system (<i>p</i> = .053) used to score subjects technical skills.ConclusionThe study findings revealed that the group receiving both didactic instruction and simulation performed an oxygenator change-out significantly faster than the group that received only didactic instruction. These results suggest that incorporating simulation of emergency scenarios into perfusion training can enhance students' speed in performing complex tasks, better preparing them for real clinical situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"2676591251331159"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of high-fidelity simulation on the performance of oxygenator change-outs among perfusion students.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Collins, Alexis Voitik, Alexander R Leonor, Luke T Juricek, Makenna Ellis, Ramandeep Kaur, Allison Weinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02676591251331159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundSimulation is increasingly utilized in the clinical training of healthcare professionals. Many perfusion programs in the United States use simulation to teach students both technical skills and effective communication. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the optimal timing for introducing simulation into the curriculum and how to assess students' competencies. This study aims to evaluate whether combining simulation with didactic education is more effective than didactic education alone for learning perfusion-specific tasks, such as oxygenator changeouts.MethodsThis was a pilot, randomized controlled study conducted during November 2020. Subjects who were in their first year and enrolled in a cardiovascular perfusion program at the university were included. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive didactic education alone (control) or didactic in combination with the simulation training (experimental). Both groups received the didactic portion of the oxygenator change out procedure and the experimental group received supplemental simulation training. The primary outcome was oxygenator change-out completion time (recorded in minutes and seconds) to identify and change-out an oxygenator in a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. The secondary outcome was total communication score and subject's overall performance assessment using the scoring system referenced by Burkhart et al.ResultsThe experimental group (<i>n</i> = 8) performed the oxygenator change-out significantly faster (363.63 ± 87.1 seconds vs 558.11 ± 185.75 seconds, <i>p</i> = .016) as compared to the control group (<i>n</i> = 9). However, there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups in overall communication skills (<i>p</i> = .152) or the scoring system (<i>p</i> = .053) used to score subjects technical skills.ConclusionThe study findings revealed that the group receiving both didactic instruction and simulation performed an oxygenator change-out significantly faster than the group that received only didactic instruction. These results suggest that incorporating simulation of emergency scenarios into perfusion training can enhance students' speed in performing complex tasks, better preparing them for real clinical situations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2676591251331159\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591251331159\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591251331159","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景模拟越来越多地应用于医疗专业人员的临床培训。美国的许多灌注课程都使用模拟教学来教授学生技术技能和有效沟通。然而,在课程中引入模拟教学的最佳时机以及如何评估学生的能力方面尚不明确。本研究旨在评估在学习灌注特定任务(如氧合器更换)时,将模拟教学与说教相结合是否比单独说教更有效。研究对象包括大学一年级心血管灌注专业的学生。受试者被随机分配到单独接受说教(对照组)或说教与模拟训练相结合(实验组)。两组均接受氧合器更换程序的说教部分,实验组则接受补充模拟训练。主要结果是在心肺旁路回路中识别和更换氧合器的完成时间(以分秒为单位)。结果实验组(n = 8)与对照组(n = 9)相比,氧合器更换速度明显更快(363.63 ± 87.1 秒 vs 558.11 ± 185.75 秒,p = .016)。然而,对照组和实验组在总体沟通技能(p = .152)或用于对受试者技术技能进行评分的评分系统(p = .053)方面没有明显差异。这些结果表明,在灌注培训中加入模拟紧急情况的内容可以提高学生执行复杂任务的速度,使他们更好地应对真实的临床情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of high-fidelity simulation on the performance of oxygenator change-outs among perfusion students.

BackgroundSimulation is increasingly utilized in the clinical training of healthcare professionals. Many perfusion programs in the United States use simulation to teach students both technical skills and effective communication. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the optimal timing for introducing simulation into the curriculum and how to assess students' competencies. This study aims to evaluate whether combining simulation with didactic education is more effective than didactic education alone for learning perfusion-specific tasks, such as oxygenator changeouts.MethodsThis was a pilot, randomized controlled study conducted during November 2020. Subjects who were in their first year and enrolled in a cardiovascular perfusion program at the university were included. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive didactic education alone (control) or didactic in combination with the simulation training (experimental). Both groups received the didactic portion of the oxygenator change out procedure and the experimental group received supplemental simulation training. The primary outcome was oxygenator change-out completion time (recorded in minutes and seconds) to identify and change-out an oxygenator in a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. The secondary outcome was total communication score and subject's overall performance assessment using the scoring system referenced by Burkhart et al.ResultsThe experimental group (n = 8) performed the oxygenator change-out significantly faster (363.63 ± 87.1 seconds vs 558.11 ± 185.75 seconds, p = .016) as compared to the control group (n = 9). However, there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups in overall communication skills (p = .152) or the scoring system (p = .053) used to score subjects technical skills.ConclusionThe study findings revealed that the group receiving both didactic instruction and simulation performed an oxygenator change-out significantly faster than the group that received only didactic instruction. These results suggest that incorporating simulation of emergency scenarios into perfusion training can enhance students' speed in performing complex tasks, better preparing them for real clinical situations.

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
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
×
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