Cargando…
Randomized Trial of a Novel ACLS Teaching Tool: Does it Improve Student Performance?
INTRODUCTION: Mounting evidence suggests that high-fidelity mannequin-based (HFMBS) and computer-based simulation are useful adjunctive educational tools for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) instruction. We sought to determine whether access to a supplemental, online computer-based ACLS simulato...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251254/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25493153 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.9.20149 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Mounting evidence suggests that high-fidelity mannequin-based (HFMBS) and computer-based simulation are useful adjunctive educational tools for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) instruction. We sought to determine whether access to a supplemental, online computer-based ACLS simulator would improve students’ performance on a standardized Mega Code using high-fidelity mannequin based simulation (HFMBS). METHODS: Sixty-five third-year medical students were randomized. Intervention group subjects (n = 29) each received a two-week access code to the online ACLS simulator, whereas the control group subjects (n = 36) did not. Primary outcome measures included students’ time to initiate chest compressions, defibrillate ventricular fibrillation, and pace symptomatic bradycardia. Secondary outcome measures included students’ subjective self-assessment of ACLS knowledge and confidence. RESULTS: Students with access to the online simulator on average defibrillated ventricular fibrillation in 112 seconds, whereas those without defibrillated in 149.9 seconds, an average of 38 seconds faster [p<.05]. Similarly, those with access to the simulator paced symptomatic bradycardia on average in 95.14 seconds whereas those without access paced on average 154.9 seconds a difference of 59.81 seconds [p<.05]. On a subjective 5-point scale, there was no difference in self-assessment of ACLS knowledge between the control (mean 3.3) versus intervention (mean 3.1) [p-value =.21]. Despite having outperformed the control group subjects in the standardized Mega Code test scenario, the intervention group felt less confident on a 5-point scale (mean 2.5) than the control group. (mean 3.2) [p<.05] CONCLUSION: The reduction in time to defibrillate ventricular fibrillation and to pace symptomatic bradycardia among the intervention group subjects suggests that the online computer-based ACLS simulator is an effective adjunctive ACLS instructional tool. |
---|