Mahling Moritz, Münch Alexander, Schenk Sebastian, Volkert Stephan, Rein Andreas, Teichner Uwe, Piontek Pascal, Haffner Leopold, Heine Daniel, Manger Andreas, Reutershan Jörg, Rosenberger Peter, Herrmann-Werner Anne, Zipfel Stephan, Celebi Nora
Department of Internal Medicine VI, Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital of Tübingen, Osianderstraße 5, Tübingen 72076, Germany.
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Sep 6;14:185. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-185.
Resuscitation is a life-saving measure usually instructed in simulation sessions. Small-group teaching is effective. However, feasible group sizes for resuscitation classes are unknown. We investigated the impact of different group sizes on the outcome of resuscitation training.
Medical students (n = 74) were randomized to courses with three, five or eight participants per tutor. The course duration was adjusted according to the group size, so that there was a time slot of 6 minutes hands-on time for every student. All participants performed an objective structured clinical examination before and after training. The teaching sessions were videotaped and resuscitation quality was scored using a checklist while we measured the chest compression parameters with a manikin. In addition, we recorded hands-on-time, questions to the tutor and unrelated conversation.
Results are displayed as median (IQR). Checklist pass rates and scores were comparable between the groups of three, five and eight students per tutor in the post-test (93%, 100% and 100%). Groups of eight students asked fewer questions (0.5 (0.0 - 1.0) vs. 3.0 (2.0 - 4.0), p < .001), had less hands-on time (2:16 min (1:15 - 4:55 min) vs. 4:07 min (2:54 - 5:52 min), p = .02), conducted more unrelated conversations (17.0 ± 5.1 and 2.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) and had lower self-assessments than groups of three students per tutor (7.0 (6.1 - 9.0) and 8.2 (7.2 - 9.0), p = .03).
Resuscitation checklist scores and pass rates after training were comparable in groups of three, five or eight medical students, although smaller groups had advantages in teaching interventions and hands-on time. Our results suggest that teaching BLS skills is effective in groups up to eight medical students, but smaller groups yielded more intense teaching conditions, which might be crucial for more complex skills or less advanced students.
复苏是一项通常在模拟课程中教授的挽救生命的措施。小组教学是有效的。然而,复苏课程可行的小组规模尚不清楚。我们研究了不同小组规模对复苏培训结果的影响。
将74名医学生随机分配到每位导师指导3名、5名或8名学员的课程中。课程时长根据小组规模进行调整,以便每个学生有6分钟的实操时间。所有参与者在培训前后都进行了客观结构化临床考试。教学课程进行了录像,使用检查表对复苏质量进行评分,同时使用人体模型测量胸外按压参数。此外,我们记录了实操时间、向导师提出的问题以及无关对话。
结果以中位数(四分位间距)表示。在测试后,每位导师指导3名、5名和8名学生的小组之间,检查表通过率和分数相当(分别为93%、100%和100%)。8人小组提出的问题较少(0.5(0.0 - 1.0)对3.0(2.0 - 4.0),p <.001),实操时间较少(2:16分钟(1:15 - 4:55分钟)对4:07分钟(2:54 - 5:52分钟),p =.02),进行的无关对话更多(17.0 ± 5.1和2.9 ± 1.7,p < 0.001),并且自我评估低于每位导师指导3名学生的小组(7.0(6.1 - 9.0)和8.2(7.2 - 9.0),p =.03)。
在由3名、5名或8名医学生组成的小组中,培训后的复苏检查表分数和通过率相当,尽管较小的小组在教学干预和实操时间方面具有优势。我们的结果表明,教授基础生命支持技能在多达8名医学生的小组中是有效的,但较小的小组产生了更密集的教学条件,这对于更复杂的技能或水平较低的学生可能至关重要。