4.7 Article

Simulation-based education with mastery learning improves residents' lumbar puncture skills

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 132-137

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31825dd39d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Excellence in Academic Medicine Act by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
  2. National Center for Research Resources, NIH [UL 1 RR 025741]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effect of simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) on internal medicine residents' lumbar puncture (LP) skills, assess neurology residents' acquired LP skills from traditional clinical education, and compare the results of SBML to traditional clinical education. Methods: This study was a pretest-posttest design with a comparison group. Fifty-eight postgraduate year (PGY) 1 internal medicine residents received an SBML intervention in LP. Residents completed a baseline skill assessment (pretest) using a 21-item LP checklist. After a 3-hour session featuring deliberate practice and feedback, residents completed a posttest and were expected to meet or exceed a minimum passing score (MPS) set by an expert panel. Simulator-trained residents' pretest and posttest scores were compared to assess the impact of the intervention. Thirty-six PGY2, 3, and 4 neurology residents from 3 medical centers completed the same simulated LP assessment without SBML. SBML posttest scores were compared to neurology residents' baseline scores. Results: PGY1 internal medicine residents improved from a mean of 46.3% to 95.7% after SBML (p < 0.001) and all met the MPS at final posttest. The performance of traditionally trained neurology residents was significantly lower than simulator-trained residents (mean 65.4%, p < 0.001) and only 6% met the MPS. Conclusions: Residents who completed SBML showed significant improvement in LP procedural skills. Few neurology residents were competent to perform a simulated LP despite clinical experience with the procedure. Neurology (R) 2012;79:132-137

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据