Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Box 357115, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195-7115, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jun;196(6):1288-95. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5618.
The objective of our study was to assess whether high-fidelity simulation-based training is more effective than traditional didactic lecture to train radiology residents in the management of contrast reactions.
This was a prospective study of 44 radiology residents randomized into a simulation group versus a lecture group. All residents attended a contrast reaction didactic lecture. Four months later, baseline knowledge was assessed with a written test, which we refer to as the "pretest." After the pretest, the 21 residents in the lecture group attended a repeat didactic lecture and the 23 residents in the simulation group underwent high-fidelity simulation-based training with five contrast reaction scenarios. Next, all residents took a second written test, which we refer to as the "posttest." Two months after the posttest, both groups took a third written test, which we refer to as the "delayed posttest," and underwent performance testing with a high-fidelity severe contrast reaction scenario graded on predefined critical actions.
There was no statistically significant difference between the simulation and lecture group pretest, immediate posttest, or delayed posttest scores. The simulation group performed better than the lecture group on the severe contrast reaction simulation scenario (p = 0.001). The simulation group reported improved comfort in identifying and managing contrast reactions and administering medications after the simulation training (p ≤ 0.04) and was more comfortable than the control group (p = 0.03), which reported no change in comfort level after the repeat didactic lecture.
When compared with didactic lecture, high-fidelity simulation-based training of contrast reaction management shows equal results on written test scores but improved performance during a high-fidelity severe contrast reaction simulation scenario.
我们的研究目的是评估高保真模拟培训是否比传统的讲座更能有效地培训放射科住院医师管理对比反应。
这是一项前瞻性研究,将 44 名放射科住院医师随机分为模拟组和讲座组。所有住院医师均参加了对比反应讲座。四个月后,通过书面测试评估基线知识,我们称之为“预测试”。预测试后,讲座组的 21 名住院医师参加了重复讲座,模拟组的 23 名住院医师进行了高保真模拟培训,共 5 个对比反应场景。接下来,所有住院医师都参加了第二次书面测试,我们称之为“后测试”。后测试两个月后,两组均参加了第三次书面测试,我们称之为“延迟后测试”,并进行了高保真严重对比反应场景的性能测试,根据预定义的关键动作进行评分。
模拟组和讲座组在预测试、即时后测试或延迟后测试中的分数没有统计学上的显著差异。模拟组在严重对比反应模拟场景中的表现优于讲座组(p = 0.001)。模拟组在模拟培训后报告在识别和管理对比反应以及给予药物方面的舒适度提高(p ≤ 0.04),并且比对照组更舒适(p = 0.03),对照组在重复讲座后报告舒适度水平没有变化。
与讲座相比,高保真模拟培训在管理对比反应方面的书面测试成绩相等,但在高保真严重对比反应模拟场景中的表现更好。