Cargando…
Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
BACKGROUND: Blended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face‐to‐face instructor‐led learning and e‐learning course, has never been validated as a teaching method for the effective use of manual defibrillators in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. AIM: To evaluate whether paediatric emerg...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34519140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12713 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Blended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face‐to‐face instructor‐led learning and e‐learning course, has never been validated as a teaching method for the effective use of manual defibrillators in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. AIM: To evaluate whether paediatric emergency and critical care providers exposed to a blended learning session performed better and recalled more defibrillator skills than those exposed to face‐to‐face learning only. STUDY DESIGN: A two‐period prospective, stratified, single‐centre, simulation‐based, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Registered nurses and postgraduate residents from either a paediatric emergency department or an intensive care unit were randomly assigned to a blended learning or face‐to‐face learning sessions on the recommended use of a manual defibrillator. Participants' adherence to recommendations was assessed by testing defibrillator skills in three consecutive paediatric cardiopulmonary scenarios performed on the day of the training and once again 2 months later. The primary endpoint was the number of errors observed during defibrillation, cardioversion, and transcutaneous pacing at the time of the initial intervention. RESULTS: Fifty participants were randomized to receive the intervention and 51 to the control group. When pooling all three procedures, the median total errors per participant was lower (2 [IQR: 1‐4]) in providers exposed to blended learning than in those exposed to face‐to‐face learning only (3 [IQR: 2‐5]; P = .06). The median of total errors per procedure was also lower. However, both training methods appeared insufficient to maintain appropriate skill retention over time as a repetition of procedures 2 months later without any refresher learning session yielded more errors in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Learners exposed to blended learning showed a reduced number in the total amount of errors compared with those exposed to face‐to‐face learning alone, with waning of skills over time. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Proficiently teaching the use of a manual defibrillator can be performed through blended learning. |
---|