Danish Society for Emergency Medicine, Emergency Department, Slagelse Hospital, Denmark.
Eur J Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;18(6):360-2. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328349ecdf.
Participants in advanced resuscitation courses are often expected to learn to perform intraosseous access (IO). But how many learning modalities are needed to achieve procedural confidence in IO? We distributed an online questionnaire to members of emergency medicine, paediatric and anaesthesiology societies in Scandinavia. The responders without real-life experience with IO (n=322) were classified as 'not confident' or 'confident' in IO. Of total responders 22.8% without training felt confident. Confidence increased to 74.8% after one training modality, 87.9% after two modalities, 98.7% after three modalities and 100% after four modalities (P<0.0001). Of total responders 89.5% who had 'workshop or similar training with hands-on experience' as sole teaching method was confident. Confidence in IO increases with the number of learning modalities. 'Workshop or similar training with hands-on experience' as single training modality seemed as effective as the combination of two modalities.
参与高级复苏课程的学员通常需要学习进行骨髓腔内穿刺（IO）。但是，需要多少种学习模式才能在 IO 操作中获得信心？我们向斯堪的纳维亚的急诊医学、儿科和麻醉学学会成员分发了在线问卷。没有实际 IO 经验的应答者（n=322）被归类为对 IO“没有信心”或“有信心”。在没有接受过培训的总应答者中，22.8%的人感到有信心。经过一种培训模式，信心增加到 74.8%，经过两种模式增加到 87.9%，经过三种模式增加到 98.7%，经过四种模式增加到 100%（P<0.0001）。在总共接受过“有实践经验的 workshop 或类似培训”作为唯一教学方法的应答者中，有 89.5%的人有信心。随着学习模式数量的增加，对 IO 的信心也会增加。作为单一培训模式的“有实践经验的 workshop 或类似培训”与两种模式的结合一样有效。
