Suppr超能文献

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.

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/11647267/67febfafeb0a/jeehp-21-33f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验