Cargando…

Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?

BACKGROUND: Current methods to assess Basic Life Support skills (BLS; chest compressions and ventilations) require the presence of an instructor. This is time-consuming and comports instructor bias. Since BLS skills testing is a routine activity, it is potentially suitable for automation. We develop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mpotos, Nicolas, De Wever, Bram, Valcke, Martin A, Monsieurs, Koenraad G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22824338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-58
_version_ 1782245073487921152
author Mpotos, Nicolas
De Wever, Bram
Valcke, Martin A
Monsieurs, Koenraad G
author_facet Mpotos, Nicolas
De Wever, Bram
Valcke, Martin A
Monsieurs, Koenraad G
author_sort Mpotos, Nicolas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current methods to assess Basic Life Support skills (BLS; chest compressions and ventilations) require the presence of an instructor. This is time-consuming and comports instructor bias. Since BLS skills testing is a routine activity, it is potentially suitable for automation. We developed a fully automated BLS testing station without instructor by using innovative software linked to a training manikin. The goal of our study was to investigate the feasibility of adequate testing (effectiveness) within the shortest period of time (efficiency). METHODS: As part of a randomised controlled trial investigating different compression depth training strategies, 184 medicine students received an individual appointment for a retention test six months after training. An interactive Flash(TM) (Adobe Systems Inc., USA) user interface was developed, to guide the students through the testing procedure after login, while Skills Station(TM) software (Laerdal Medical, Norway) automatically recorded compressions and ventilations and their duration (“time on task”). In a subgroup of 29 students the room entrance and exit time was registered to assess efficiency. To obtain a qualitative insight of the effectiveness, student’s perceptions about the instructional organisation and about the usability of the fully automated testing station were surveyed. RESULTS: During testing there was incomplete data registration in two students and one student performed compressions only. The average time on task for the remaining 181 students was three minutes (SD 0.5). In the subgroup, the average overall time spent in the testing station was 7.5 minutes (SD 1.4). Mean scores were 5.3/6 (SD 0.5, range 4.0-6.0) for instructional organisation and 5.0/6 (SD 0.61, range 3.1-6.0) for usability. Students highly appreciated the automated testing procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated testing station was an effective and efficient method to assess BLS skills in medicine students. Instructional organisation and usability were judged to be very good. This method enables future formative assessment and certification procedures to be carried out without instructor involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: B67020097543
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3461425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34614252012-10-02 Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible? Mpotos, Nicolas De Wever, Bram Valcke, Martin A Monsieurs, Koenraad G BMC Med Educ Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Current methods to assess Basic Life Support skills (BLS; chest compressions and ventilations) require the presence of an instructor. This is time-consuming and comports instructor bias. Since BLS skills testing is a routine activity, it is potentially suitable for automation. We developed a fully automated BLS testing station without instructor by using innovative software linked to a training manikin. The goal of our study was to investigate the feasibility of adequate testing (effectiveness) within the shortest period of time (efficiency). METHODS: As part of a randomised controlled trial investigating different compression depth training strategies, 184 medicine students received an individual appointment for a retention test six months after training. An interactive Flash(TM) (Adobe Systems Inc., USA) user interface was developed, to guide the students through the testing procedure after login, while Skills Station(TM) software (Laerdal Medical, Norway) automatically recorded compressions and ventilations and their duration (“time on task”). In a subgroup of 29 students the room entrance and exit time was registered to assess efficiency. To obtain a qualitative insight of the effectiveness, student’s perceptions about the instructional organisation and about the usability of the fully automated testing station were surveyed. RESULTS: During testing there was incomplete data registration in two students and one student performed compressions only. The average time on task for the remaining 181 students was three minutes (SD 0.5). In the subgroup, the average overall time spent in the testing station was 7.5 minutes (SD 1.4). Mean scores were 5.3/6 (SD 0.5, range 4.0-6.0) for instructional organisation and 5.0/6 (SD 0.61, range 3.1-6.0) for usability. Students highly appreciated the automated testing procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Our automated testing station was an effective and efficient method to assess BLS skills in medicine students. Instructional organisation and usability were judged to be very good. This method enables future formative assessment and certification procedures to be carried out without instructor involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: B67020097543 BioMed Central 2012-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3461425/ /pubmed/22824338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-58 Text en Copyright ©2012 Mpotos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Mpotos, Nicolas
De Wever, Bram
Valcke, Martin A
Monsieurs, Koenraad G
Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title_full Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title_fullStr Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title_full_unstemmed Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title_short Assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
title_sort assessing basic life support skills without an instructor: is it possible?
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22824338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-58
work_keys_str_mv AT mpotosnicolas assessingbasiclifesupportskillswithoutaninstructorisitpossible
AT deweverbram assessingbasiclifesupportskillswithoutaninstructorisitpossible
AT valckemartina assessingbasiclifesupportskillswithoutaninstructorisitpossible
AT monsieurskoenraadg assessingbasiclifesupportskillswithoutaninstructorisitpossible