Thorne C J, Lockey A S, Bullock I, Hampshire S, Begum-Ali S, Perkins G D
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK; Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK.
Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK; Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Halifax HX3 0PW, UK.
Resuscitation. 2015 May;90:79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.026. Epub 2015 Mar 9.
To descriptively analyse the outcomes following the national roll out of an e-Learning advanced life support course (e-ALS) compared to a conventional 2-day ALS course (c-ALS).
Between 1st January 2013 and 30th June 2014, 27,170 candidates attended one of the 1350 Resuscitation Council (UK) ALS courses across the UK. 18,952 candidates were enrolled on a c-ALS course and 8218 on an e-ALS course. Candidates participating in the e-ALS course completed 6-8h of online e-Learning prior to attending the 1 day modified face-to-face course. Candidates participating in the c-ALS course undertook the Resuscitation Council (UK) 2-day face-to-face course. All candidates were assessed by a pre- and post-course MCQ and a practical cardiac arrest simulation (CAS-test). Demographic data were collected in addition to assessment outcomes.
Candidates on the e-ALS course had higher scores on the pre-course MCQ (83.7%, SD 7.3) compared to those on the c-ALS course (81.3%, SD 8.2, P<0.001). Similarly, they had slightly higher scores on the post-course MCQ (e-ALS 87.9%, SD 6.4 vs. c-ALS 87.4%, SD 6.5; P<0.001). The first attempt CAS-test pass rate on the e-ALS course was higher than the pass rate on the c-ALS course (84.6% vs. 83.6%; P=0.035). The overall pass rate was 96.6% on both the e-ALS and c-ALS courses (P=0.776).
The e-ALS course demonstrates equivalence to traditional face-to-face learning in equipping candidates with ALS skills when compared to the c-ALS course. Value is added when considering benefits such as increased candidate autonomy, cost-effectiveness, decreased instructor burden and improved standardisation of course material. Further dissemination of the e-ALS course should be encouraged.
描述性分析全国推广电子学习高级生命支持课程（e-ALS）与传统的为期2天的高级生命支持课程（c-ALS）相比的结果。
在2013年1月1日至2014年6月30日期间，27170名学员参加了英国各地1350个复苏理事会（英国）高级生命支持课程中的一个。18952名学员参加了c-ALS课程，8218名学员参加了e-ALS课程。参加e-ALS课程的学员在参加为期1天的改良面对面课程之前完成了6-8小时的在线电子学习。参加c-ALS课程的学员参加了复苏理事会（英国）为期2天的面对面课程。所有学员均通过课前和课后的多项选择题以及实际心脏骤停模拟（CAS测试）进行评估。除了评估结果外，还收集了人口统计学数据。
与参加c-ALS课程的学员相比，参加e-ALS课程的学员在课前多项选择题上的得分更高（83.7%，标准差7.3）（c-ALS课程为81.3%，标准差8.2，P<0.001）。同样，他们在课后多项选择题上的得分也略高（e-ALS课程为87.9%，标准差6.4，而c-ALS课程为87.4%，标准差6.5；P<0.001）。e-ALS课程的首次尝试CAS测试通过率高于c-ALS课程的通过率（84.6%对83.6%；P=0.035）。e-ALS课程和c-ALS课程的总体通过率均为96.6%（P=0.776）。
与c-ALS课程相比，e-ALS课程在使学员具备高级生命支持技能方面与传统的面对面学习相当。在考虑增加学员自主性、成本效益、减轻教师负担和提高课程材料标准化等益处时，其价值得以体现。应鼓励进一步推广e-ALS课程。
