Desiderius School, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Room Gk 657, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Burg. S' Jacobplein 51, 3015 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Training Center for Health Professionals, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Perspect Med Educ. 2014 Sep;3(4):289-299. doi: 10.1007/s40037-014-0109-0.
Introduction There is a demand for more attractive and efficient training programmes in postgraduate health care training. This retrospective study aims to show the effectiveness of a blended versus traditional face-to-face training design. For nurses in postgraduate Acute and Intensive Care training, the effectiveness of a blended course design was compared with a traditional design. Methods In a first pilot study 57 students took a traditional course (2-h lecture and 2-h workshop) and 46 students took a blended course (2-h lecture and 2-h online self-study material). Test results were compared for both groups. After positive results in the pilot study, the design was replicated for the complete programme in Acute and Intensive Care. Now 16 students followed the traditional programme (11 days face-to-face education) and 31 students did the blended programme (7 days face-to-face and 40 h online self-study). An evaluation was done after the pilot and course costs were calculated. Results Results show that the traditional and blended groups were similar regarding the main characteristics and did not differ in learning results for both the pilot and the complete programme. Student evaluations of both designs were positive; however, the blended group were more confident that they had achieved the learning objectives. Training costs were reduced substantially. Conclusion The blended training design offers an effective and attractive training solution, leading to a significant reduction in costs.
简介 研究生医疗培训需要更具吸引力和效率的培训课程。本回顾性研究旨在展示混合式培训设计相对于传统面对面培训设计的有效性。对于研究生急症和重症监护培训中的护士,比较了混合式课程设计与传统设计的效果。
方法 在一项初步试点研究中,57 名学生参加了传统课程(2 小时讲座和 2 小时研讨会),46 名学生参加了混合课程(2 小时讲座和 2 小时在线自学材料)。比较了两组的测试结果。在试点研究取得积极结果后,该设计在急症和重症监护的完整课程中得到了复制。现在,16 名学生参加传统课程(11 天面对面教育),31 名学生参加混合课程(7 天面对面和 40 小时在线自学)。在试点和课程成本计算后进行了评估。
结果 结果表明,传统组和混合组在主要特征方面相似,在试点和完整课程中学习结果均无差异。两种设计的学生评估均为正面,但混合组更有信心已达到学习目标。培训成本大幅降低。
结论 混合式培训设计提供了一种有效且有吸引力的培训解决方案,可显著降低成本。