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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siebert, Johan N., Glangetas, Alban, Grange, Marine, Haddad, Kevin, Courvoisier, Delphine S., Lacroix, Laurence
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
_version_ 1784748912415866880
author Siebert, Johan N.
Glangetas, Alban
Grange, Marine
Haddad, Kevin
Courvoisier, Delphine S.
Lacroix, Laurence
author_facet Siebert, Johan N.
Glangetas, Alban
Grange, Marine
Haddad, Kevin
Courvoisier, Delphine S.
Lacroix, Laurence
author_sort Siebert, Johan N.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9290488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92904882022-07-20 Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial Siebert, Johan N. Glangetas, Alban Grange, Marine Haddad, Kevin Courvoisier, Delphine S. Lacroix, Laurence Nurs Crit Care Research 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. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2021-09-13 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9290488/ /pubmed/34519140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12713 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Research
Siebert, Johan N.
Glangetas, Alban
Grange, Marine
Haddad, Kevin
Courvoisier, Delphine S.
Lacroix, Laurence
Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title_full Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title_fullStr Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title_full_unstemmed Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title_short Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial
title_sort impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: a simulation‐based randomized trial
topic Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT siebertjohann impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial
AT glangetasalban impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial
AT grangemarine impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial
AT haddadkevin impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial
AT courvoisierdelphines impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial
AT lacroixlaurence impactofblendedlearningonmanualdefibrillatorsuseasimulationbasedrandomizedtrial