• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

新加坡脓毒症和创伤复苏培训中虚拟与真人模拟比较的随机对照试验。

Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore.

出版信息

J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:33. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33. Epub 2024 Nov 18.

DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33
PMID:39552082
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11647267/
Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and 2-tailed t-test respectively.

RESULTS

For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).

CONCLUSION

For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较新手使用虚拟患者模拟(VPS)与面对面模拟(IPS)进行脓毒症和创伤复苏技能的认知、非认知和总体学习效果。

方法

2022 年 1 月至 12 月,我们在 1 家急诊科对初级医生进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了 VPS(n=19)和 IPS(n=21)组各 70 分钟的脓毒症和创伤复苏培训。我们使用名义小组技术创建了技能评估检查表,并为每个检查表项目确定了布鲁姆的分类法领域。两名盲评人观察参与者主导的 1 例脓毒症和 1 例创伤复苏模拟。使用学生学习满意度量表(SSLS)来衡量满意度。使用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验和双侧 t 检验分别分析 SSLS 和检查表评分。

结果

对于脓毒症,VPS 和 IPS 在总体评分(2.0;95%置信区间 [CI],-1.4 至 5.4;Cohen's d=0.38)以及认知项目(1.1;95% CI,-1.5 至 3.7)和非认知项目(0.9;95% CI,-0.4 至 2.2)上均无显著差异。同样,对于创伤,在总体评分(-0.9;95% CI,-4.1 至 2.3;Cohen's d=0.19)以及认知项目(-0.3;95% CI,-2.8 至 2.1)和非认知项目(-0.6;95% CI,-2.4 至 1.3)上均无显著差异。VPS 的 SSLS 评分中位数低于 IPS(-3.0;95% CI,-1.0 至 -5.0)。

结论

对于新手来说,VPS 和 IPS 对脓毒症和创伤复苏的总体和非认知学习效果没有显著差异。学习者对 IPS 的满意度高于 VPS(临床试验注册编号:NCT05201950)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/3611d5befb3f/jeehp-21-33f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/67febfafeb0a/jeehp-21-33f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/6496e400cd8d/jeehp-21-33f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/ce11263fa958/jeehp-21-33f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/9832e1338386/jeehp-21-33f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/3409e13d0926/jeehp-21-33f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/3611d5befb3f/jeehp-21-33f6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/67febfafeb0a/jeehp-21-33f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/6496e400cd8d/jeehp-21-33f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/ce11263fa958/jeehp-21-33f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/9832e1338386/jeehp-21-33f4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/3409e13d0926/jeehp-21-33f5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/72cb/11647267/3611d5befb3f/jeehp-21-33f6.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial.新加坡脓毒症和创伤复苏培训中虚拟与真人模拟比较的随机对照试验。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2024;21:33. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33. Epub 2024 Nov 18.
2
Immersive Virtual Reality Versus Mannequin-based Simulation Training for Trauma Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.沉浸式虚拟现实与基于人体模型的创伤复苏模拟培训:一项随机对照非劣效性试验。
Mil Med. 2025 Apr 23;190(5-6):e1216-e1223. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usae510.
3
An in-situ simulation-based educational outreach project for pediatric trauma care in a rural trauma system.农村创伤系统中基于现场模拟的儿科创伤护理教育推广项目。
J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Feb;53(2):367-371. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.042. Epub 2017 Oct 13.
4
The Effect of "Online-Simulation-Bedside" Three-Step Teaching Method in Team Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills Training of Emergency Department and Critical Care Nursing Interns-An Analysis Based on Kirkpatrick Model.“线上模拟-床边”三步教学法在急诊科及重症监护护理实习生团队心肺复苏技能培训中的效果——基于柯克帕特里克模型的分析
J Nurs Manag. 2025 Feb 24;2025:8624274. doi: 10.1155/jonm/8624274. eCollection 2025.
5
Improving Pediatric Preparedness in Critical Access Hospital Emergency Departments: Impact of a Longitudinal In Situ Simulation Program.提高基层医疗急救医院急诊科的儿科应急能力:纵向现场模拟项目的影响
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018 Jan;34(1):17-20. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001366.
6
The MacTRAUMA TTL Assessment Tool: Developing a Novel Tool for Assessing Performance of Trauma Trainees: Initial Reliability Testing.MacTRAUMA TTL评估工具:开发一种用于评估创伤实习医生表现的新型工具:初始信度测试。
J Surg Educ. 2016 Nov-Dec;73(6):1046-1051. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.05.013. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
7
Development of Reliable and Validated Tools to Evaluate Technical Resuscitation Skills in a Pediatric Simulation Setting: Resuscitation and Emergency Simulation Checklist for Assessment in Pediatrics.开发用于评估儿科模拟环境中技术复苏技能的可靠且经过验证的工具:儿科评估复苏与急诊模拟检查表
J Pediatr. 2017 Sep;188:252-257.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.03.055. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
8
Enhancing trauma cardiopulmonary resuscitation simulation training with the use of virtual reality (Trauma SimVR): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.利用虚拟现实技术增强创伤心肺复苏模拟训练(创伤模拟虚拟现实[Trauma SimVR]):一项随机对照试验方案
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0316828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316828. eCollection 2025.
9
Teamwork training improves the clinical care of trauma patients.团队合作培训提高创伤患者的临床护理水平。
J Surg Educ. 2010 Nov-Dec;67(6):439-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.006. Epub 2010 Nov 5.
10
Effect of Artificial Intelligence Tutoring vs Expert Instruction on Learning Simulated Surgical Skills Among Medical Students: A Randomized Clinical Trial.人工智能辅导与专家指导对医学生模拟手术技能学习效果的影响:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2149008. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.49008.

本文引用的文献

1
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.拯救脓毒症运动:2021年脓毒症和脓毒性休克国际管理指南
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
2
Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.204 个国家和地区 1990-2019 年 369 种疾病和伤害导致的全球负担:2019 年全球疾病负担研究的系统分析。
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9.
3
Trainee Performance After Laparoscopic Simulator Training Using a Blackbox versus LapMentor.
腹腔镜模拟器训练后使用黑盒与 LapMentor 对学员表现的影响
J Surg Res. 2020 Jun;250:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.12.039. Epub 2020 Jan 31.
4
Virtual Patient Simulations in Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.卫生专业教育中的虚拟患者模拟:数字健康教育合作组织的系统评价与荟萃分析
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 2;21(7):e14676. doi: 10.2196/14676.
5
Clinical Virtual Simulation in Nursing Education: Randomized Controlled Trial.护理教育中的临床虚拟模拟:随机对照试验。
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 18;21(3):e11529. doi: 10.2196/11529.
6
Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research.在医学教育研究中使用德尔菲法和名义群体法等共识小组方法。
Med Teach. 2017 Jan;39(1):14-19. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1245856. Epub 2016 Nov 12.
7
Cognitive Load Theory for the Design of Medical Simulations.用于医学模拟设计的认知负荷理论
Simul Healthc. 2015 Oct;10(5):295-307. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000097.
8
Virtual patients--what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education.虚拟患者——我们在谈论什么?一个对医疗保健教育中该术语含义进行分类的框架。
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Feb 1;15:11. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0296-3.
9
Comparison of virtual patient simulation with mannequin-based simulation for improving clinical performances in assessing and managing clinical deterioration: randomized controlled trial.虚拟患者模拟与基于人体模型的模拟在评估和管理临床病情恶化中改善临床操作表现的比较:随机对照试验。
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Sep 17;16(9):e214. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3322.
10
Psychometric testing on the NLN Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning, Simulation Design Scale, and Educational Practices Questionnaire using a sample of pre-licensure novice nurses.使用预执照新手护士样本对NLN学生学习满意度与自信心、模拟设计量表及教育实践问卷进行心理测量测试。
Nurse Educ Today. 2014 Oct;34(10):1298-304. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.06.011. Epub 2014 Jul 9.