胜任型与熟练型医护人员视频引导插管技术比较。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Leanne K Elliott, Nick Wattie, Jonathan Pirie, Kathy Boutis, Adam Dubrowski, Paul Yielder, Natasha Collia
{"title":"胜任型与熟练型医护人员视频引导插管技术比较。","authors":"Leanne K Elliott, Nick Wattie, Jonathan Pirie, Kathy Boutis, Adam Dubrowski, Paul Yielder, Natasha Collia","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identifying the most effective simulation training approach for maintaining critical skills among staff physicians is essential, as this can affect patient safety and healthcare costs. While competency-based and mastery-based interventions have been studied independently, their effects on skill retention and transfer have not been directly compared. This prospective cohort study compared mastery-based and competency-based training for video laryngoscopy (VL) skill maintenance among staff physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Each intervention included a presimulation online module and a simulation-based training session differing only in performance standards. The competency group (n=8) followed an instructor-determined standard, while the mastery group (n=8) adhered to a higher Mastery Angoff-established standard. VL skills were assessed pre-, post-, and 6 months later (follow-up) in the mastery group; the competency group was assessed only at follow-up. Follow-up included a retention test (pediatric mannequin) and a transfer test (neonatal task trainer). Performance was evaluated using an 18-item checklist (max score: 36) and procedural time (seconds).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mastery group significantly increased mean VL scores and decreased mean VL time from pretest (score=22.13; time=162.00 s) to post-test (34.38; 71.50 s) [(P<0.001, 95% CI: -17.44, -7.06);(P<0.001, 95% CI: 61.73, 119.27)]. All mastery-trained staff maintained skill mastery (≥32) at follow-up and outperformed the competency group at retention [(score=33.00 vs. 27.00; P<0.001, 95% CI: 3.40, 8.60);(time=60.63 s vs. 91.25s; P>0.05, 95% CI: -70.02,8.78)] and transfer [(score=34.38 vs. 26.13; P<0.001, 95% CI: 6.05, 10.45) (time=30.63s vs. 55.00 s; P>0.05,95% CI: -53.50, 4.75)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simulation-based mastery learning may enhance staff physicians' maintenance of VL skills and procedural efficiency. However, given the absence of baseline data for the competency group, definitive conclusions regarding superiority cannot be drawn.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Video-guided Intubation Skills of Competency and Mastery-trained Staff Physicians.\",\"authors\":\"Leanne K Elliott, Nick Wattie, Jonathan Pirie, Kathy Boutis, Adam Dubrowski, Paul Yielder, Natasha Collia\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identifying the most effective simulation training approach for maintaining critical skills among staff physicians is essential, as this can affect patient safety and healthcare costs. While competency-based and mastery-based interventions have been studied independently, their effects on skill retention and transfer have not been directly compared. This prospective cohort study compared mastery-based and competency-based training for video laryngoscopy (VL) skill maintenance among staff physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Each intervention included a presimulation online module and a simulation-based training session differing only in performance standards. The competency group (n=8) followed an instructor-determined standard, while the mastery group (n=8) adhered to a higher Mastery Angoff-established standard. VL skills were assessed pre-, post-, and 6 months later (follow-up) in the mastery group; the competency group was assessed only at follow-up. Follow-up included a retention test (pediatric mannequin) and a transfer test (neonatal task trainer). Performance was evaluated using an 18-item checklist (max score: 36) and procedural time (seconds).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mastery group significantly increased mean VL scores and decreased mean VL time from pretest (score=22.13; time=162.00 s) to post-test (34.38; 71.50 s) [(P<0.001, 95% CI: -17.44, -7.06);(P<0.001, 95% CI: 61.73, 119.27)]. All mastery-trained staff maintained skill mastery (≥32) at follow-up and outperformed the competency group at retention [(score=33.00 vs. 27.00; P<0.001, 95% CI: 3.40, 8.60);(time=60.63 s vs. 91.25s; P>0.05, 95% CI: -70.02,8.78)] and transfer [(score=34.38 vs. 26.13; P<0.001, 95% CI: 6.05, 10.45) (time=30.63s vs. 55.00 s; P>0.05,95% CI: -53.50, 4.75)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simulation-based mastery learning may enhance staff physicians' maintenance of VL skills and procedural efficiency. However, given the absence of baseline data for the competency group, definitive conclusions regarding superiority cannot be drawn.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000962\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000962","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:确定最有效的模拟培训方法,以保持医务人员的关键技能至关重要,因为这可能影响患者安全和医疗保健成本。虽然以能力为基础的干预和以掌握为基础的干预已被独立研究,但它们对技能保留和转移的影响尚未直接比较。本前瞻性队列研究比较了在职医师中基于掌握和基于能力的视频喉镜(VL)技能维护培训。方法:每个干预包括一个预模拟在线模块和一个基于模拟的培训课程,不同的只是表现标准。胜任力组(n=8)遵循教师确定的标准,而精通组(n=8)遵循更高的掌握angoff建立的标准。掌握组的VL技能在学习前、学习后和6个月后(随访)进行评估;胜任力组仅在随访时进行评估。随访包括保留测试(儿童假人)和转移测试(新生儿任务训练器)。使用18项检查表(最高得分:36)和程序时间(秒)来评估绩效。结果:掌握组从测试前(得分=22.13;时间=162.00 s)到测试后(34.38;71.50 s)和迁移组(得分=34.38 vs. 26.13; P0.05,95% CI: -53.50, 4.75)显著提高了平均VL得分,缩短了平均VL时间[p < 0.05,95% CI: -70.02,8.78]。结论:基于模拟的熟练学习可以提高医师对VL技能的维护和操作效率。然而,由于缺乏能力组的基线数据,无法得出关于优势的明确结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Video-guided Intubation Skills of Competency and Mastery-trained Staff Physicians.

Introduction: Identifying the most effective simulation training approach for maintaining critical skills among staff physicians is essential, as this can affect patient safety and healthcare costs. While competency-based and mastery-based interventions have been studied independently, their effects on skill retention and transfer have not been directly compared. This prospective cohort study compared mastery-based and competency-based training for video laryngoscopy (VL) skill maintenance among staff physicians.

Methods: Each intervention included a presimulation online module and a simulation-based training session differing only in performance standards. The competency group (n=8) followed an instructor-determined standard, while the mastery group (n=8) adhered to a higher Mastery Angoff-established standard. VL skills were assessed pre-, post-, and 6 months later (follow-up) in the mastery group; the competency group was assessed only at follow-up. Follow-up included a retention test (pediatric mannequin) and a transfer test (neonatal task trainer). Performance was evaluated using an 18-item checklist (max score: 36) and procedural time (seconds).

Results: The mastery group significantly increased mean VL scores and decreased mean VL time from pretest (score=22.13; time=162.00 s) to post-test (34.38; 71.50 s) [(P<0.001, 95% CI: -17.44, -7.06);(P<0.001, 95% CI: 61.73, 119.27)]. All mastery-trained staff maintained skill mastery (≥32) at follow-up and outperformed the competency group at retention [(score=33.00 vs. 27.00; P<0.001, 95% CI: 3.40, 8.60);(time=60.63 s vs. 91.25s; P>0.05, 95% CI: -70.02,8.78)] and transfer [(score=34.38 vs. 26.13; P<0.001, 95% CI: 6.05, 10.45) (time=30.63s vs. 55.00 s; P>0.05,95% CI: -53.50, 4.75)].

Conclusions: Simulation-based mastery learning may enhance staff physicians' maintenance of VL skills and procedural efficiency. However, given the absence of baseline data for the competency group, definitive conclusions regarding superiority cannot be drawn.

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
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书