Cargando…
Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents
Background Central Venous Catheter (CVC) placement is a common critical care procedure. Simulated practice has been shown to reduce its iatrogenic complications. Video modeling (VM) is an instructional adjunct that improves the quality and success of CVC insertion. Immersive VM can improve recall a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33824812 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13661 |
_version_ | 1783674047565922304 |
---|---|
author | Mah, Evan Yu, Julie Deck, Megan Lyster, Kish Kawchuk, Joann Turnquist, Alison Thoma, Brent |
author_facet | Mah, Evan Yu, Julie Deck, Megan Lyster, Kish Kawchuk, Joann Turnquist, Alison Thoma, Brent |
author_sort | Mah, Evan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background Central Venous Catheter (CVC) placement is a common critical care procedure. Simulated practice has been shown to reduce its iatrogenic complications. Video modeling (VM) is an instructional adjunct that improves the quality and success of CVC insertion. Immersive VM can improve recall and skill translation, but its role in teaching medical procedures is not established. Research question/hypothesis We hypothesized that, relative to traditional VM, immersive VM would decrease cognitive load and enhance ultrasound-guided CVC insertion skill acquisition. Methods Thirty-two resident physicians from four specialties were randomized into traditional (control) or immersive VM (intervention) groups for three CVC training sessions. Cognitive load was quantified via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Mean (± standard deviations) values were compared using two-tailed t-tests. Skill acquisition was quantified by procedural time and the average 5-point [EM1] [TB2] entrustment score of three expert raters. Results Overall entrustment scores improved from the first (3.44±0.98) to the third (4.06±1.23; p<0.002) session but were not significantly different between the control and intervention groups. There were no significant differences between NASA TLX scores or procedural time. Conclusion We found no significant difference in entrustment, cognitive load, or procedural time. Immersive VM was not found to be superior to traditional VM for teaching CVC insertion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8017344 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80173442021-04-05 Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents Mah, Evan Yu, Julie Deck, Megan Lyster, Kish Kawchuk, Joann Turnquist, Alison Thoma, Brent Cureus Emergency Medicine Background Central Venous Catheter (CVC) placement is a common critical care procedure. Simulated practice has been shown to reduce its iatrogenic complications. Video modeling (VM) is an instructional adjunct that improves the quality and success of CVC insertion. Immersive VM can improve recall and skill translation, but its role in teaching medical procedures is not established. Research question/hypothesis We hypothesized that, relative to traditional VM, immersive VM would decrease cognitive load and enhance ultrasound-guided CVC insertion skill acquisition. Methods Thirty-two resident physicians from four specialties were randomized into traditional (control) or immersive VM (intervention) groups for three CVC training sessions. Cognitive load was quantified via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Mean (± standard deviations) values were compared using two-tailed t-tests. Skill acquisition was quantified by procedural time and the average 5-point [EM1] [TB2] entrustment score of three expert raters. Results Overall entrustment scores improved from the first (3.44±0.98) to the third (4.06±1.23; p<0.002) session but were not significantly different between the control and intervention groups. There were no significant differences between NASA TLX scores or procedural time. Conclusion We found no significant difference in entrustment, cognitive load, or procedural time. Immersive VM was not found to be superior to traditional VM for teaching CVC insertion. Cureus 2021-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8017344/ /pubmed/33824812 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13661 Text en Copyright © 2021, Mah et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Emergency Medicine Mah, Evan Yu, Julie Deck, Megan Lyster, Kish Kawchuk, Joann Turnquist, Alison Thoma, Brent Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title | Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title_full | Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title_fullStr | Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title_full_unstemmed | Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title_short | Immersive Video Modeling Versus Traditional Video Modeling for Teaching Central Venous Catheter Insertion to Medical Residents |
title_sort | immersive video modeling versus traditional video modeling for teaching central venous catheter insertion to medical residents |
topic | Emergency Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33824812 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13661 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mahevan immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT yujulie immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT deckmegan immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT lysterkish immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT kawchukjoann immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT turnquistalison immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents AT thomabrent immersivevideomodelingversustraditionalvideomodelingforteachingcentralvenouscatheterinsertiontomedicalresidents |