Cargando…
Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation
BACKGROUND: Knowledge acquisition and skill maintenance are important in learning neonatal resuscitation. Traditionally this is taught by using low fidelity mannequins. Technological advancement enabled a move towards high fidelity mannequins. In a low resources setting, it is incumbent to ensure re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26526494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1623-9 |
_version_ | 1782398784383221760 |
---|---|
author | Nimbalkar, Archana Patel, Dipen Kungwani, Amit Phatak, Ajay Vasa, Rohitkumar Nimbalkar, Somashekhar |
author_facet | Nimbalkar, Archana Patel, Dipen Kungwani, Amit Phatak, Ajay Vasa, Rohitkumar Nimbalkar, Somashekhar |
author_sort | Nimbalkar, Archana |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Knowledge acquisition and skill maintenance are important in learning neonatal resuscitation. Traditionally this is taught by using low fidelity mannequins. Technological advancement enabled a move towards high fidelity mannequins. In a low resources setting, it is incumbent to ensure reasonable cost benefit ratio before investing in technology. METHODS: A randomized control trial was conducted in 101 undergraduate students who were assigned to conventional Resusci(®) Baby Basic or SimNewB group over a period of 3 days. The lectures were the same for both groups but the hands on training was on different mannequins. There were five experienced and accredited teachers who were standardized for training the students. Both the groups received a written test and a Megacode before and after the training, and 3 months later a post-test. RESULTS: The baseline written exam score (p = 0.07), Megacode assessment score (p = 0.19) and sex distribution (p = 0.17) were similar in both groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in the written exam score as well as in the Megacode assessment score at post-test and 3 months (retention) period. However there was no significant difference in the “improvement” between both the groups with respect to written exam (p = 0.38) or Megacode assessment (p = 0.92). Further the post-test and 3 month scores were comparable for the skills as well as content components suggesting that the skills were retained in 3 months with an opportunity of self learning them. CONCLUSIONS: Due diligence is a caveat before contemplating the acquisition of high fidelity mannequins by educational centers for neonatal resuscitation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4630885 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46308852015-11-04 Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation Nimbalkar, Archana Patel, Dipen Kungwani, Amit Phatak, Ajay Vasa, Rohitkumar Nimbalkar, Somashekhar BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: Knowledge acquisition and skill maintenance are important in learning neonatal resuscitation. Traditionally this is taught by using low fidelity mannequins. Technological advancement enabled a move towards high fidelity mannequins. In a low resources setting, it is incumbent to ensure reasonable cost benefit ratio before investing in technology. METHODS: A randomized control trial was conducted in 101 undergraduate students who were assigned to conventional Resusci(®) Baby Basic or SimNewB group over a period of 3 days. The lectures were the same for both groups but the hands on training was on different mannequins. There were five experienced and accredited teachers who were standardized for training the students. Both the groups received a written test and a Megacode before and after the training, and 3 months later a post-test. RESULTS: The baseline written exam score (p = 0.07), Megacode assessment score (p = 0.19) and sex distribution (p = 0.17) were similar in both groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in the written exam score as well as in the Megacode assessment score at post-test and 3 months (retention) period. However there was no significant difference in the “improvement” between both the groups with respect to written exam (p = 0.38) or Megacode assessment (p = 0.92). Further the post-test and 3 month scores were comparable for the skills as well as content components suggesting that the skills were retained in 3 months with an opportunity of self learning them. CONCLUSIONS: Due diligence is a caveat before contemplating the acquisition of high fidelity mannequins by educational centers for neonatal resuscitation. BioMed Central 2015-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4630885/ /pubmed/26526494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1623-9 Text en © Nimbalkar et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nimbalkar, Archana Patel, Dipen Kungwani, Amit Phatak, Ajay Vasa, Rohitkumar Nimbalkar, Somashekhar Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title | Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title_full | Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title_fullStr | Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title_full_unstemmed | Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title_short | Randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
title_sort | randomized control trial of high fidelity vs low fidelity simulation for training undergraduate students in neonatal resuscitation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26526494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1623-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nimbalkararchana randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation AT pateldipen randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation AT kungwaniamit randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation AT phatakajay randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation AT vasarohitkumar randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation AT nimbalkarsomashekhar randomizedcontroltrialofhighfidelityvslowfidelitysimulationfortrainingundergraduatestudentsinneonatalresuscitation |