Auerbach Marc, Kessler David, Foltin Jessica Cooper
Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Jan;27(1):29-31. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182043f3b.
The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of repetitive pediatric simulation (RPS) training (scenario-debriefing-scenario) to standard pediatric simulation (STN) training (scenario-debriefing).
Pediatric and emergency medicine residents prospectively participated in simulated pediatric resuscitation training sessions in an in situ simulation room. Residents anonymously reported their knowledge, skills, and confidence after each session. Four learners and 2 faculty preceptors (1 pediatric emergency medicine attending physician and 1 pediatric emergency medicine fellow) participated in each session. Scenarios were performed on a high-fidelity simulator (SimBaby; Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway), and video debriefing was used for all training sessions. Standard pediatric simulation was used in the initial 6 months of the study, whereas RPS was used in the second 6 months of the study.
One hundred fifteen subjects completed simulation sessions during the study period. The RPS group reported higher overall debriefing quality and were more likely to report that the simulation session was an excellent method of teaching. The RPS group reported greater improvement in knowledge and skills than did the STN group. Similar scores were reported for confidence, overall performance, stress levels, and realism of the simulator in both the STN and RPS groups.
Feedback is a key feature of effective medical simulation. Repetitive pediatric simulation provides learners with a discrete opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills discussed during debriefing in an immediate second simulation session and thereby complete Kolb's experiential learning cycle. In this study, the RPS debriefing format was associated with higher self-reported knowledge and skills. The RPS group reported more positive attitudes toward simulation than the STN group.
本研究的目的是比较重复性儿科模拟(RPS)训练(情景 - 总结 - 情景)与标准儿科模拟(STN)训练(情景 - 总结)的有效性。
儿科和急诊医学住院医师前瞻性地参与了在现场模拟室进行的模拟儿科复苏训练课程。住院医师在每次课程后匿名报告他们的知识、技能和信心。每次课程有4名学习者和2名教员(1名儿科急诊医学主治医师和1名儿科急诊医学住院医师)参与。情景在高保真模拟器(SimBaby;挪威斯塔万格的Laerdal Medical公司)上进行,所有训练课程均采用视频总结。在研究的前6个月使用标准儿科模拟,而在研究的后6个月使用RPS。
115名受试者在研究期间完成了模拟课程。RPS组报告总体总结质量更高,并且更有可能报告模拟课程是一种优秀的教学方法。RPS组报告的知识和技能提升比STN组更大。STN组和RPS组在信心、总体表现、压力水平和模拟器逼真度方面的得分相似。
反馈是有效的医学模拟的关键特征。重复性儿科模拟为学习者提供了一个独特的机会,即在紧接着的第二次模拟课程中应用在总结期间讨论的知识和技能,从而完成科尔布的体验式学习循环。在本研究中,RPS总结形式与更高的自我报告知识和技能相关。RPS组对模拟的态度比STN组更积极。