4.6 Article

Unexpected Collateral Effects of Simulation-Based Medical Education

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 86, 期 12, 页码 1513-1517

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318234c493

关键词

-

资金

  1. Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
  2. National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL 1 RR 025741]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Internal medicine residents who complete simulation-based education (SBE) in central venous catheter (CVC) insertion acquire improved skills that yield better patient care outcomes. The collateral effects of SBE on the skills of residents who have not yet experienced SBE are unknown. Method In this retrospective, observational study, the authors used a checklist to test the internal jugular and subclavian CVC insertion skills of 102 Northwestern University second- and third-year internal medicine residents before they received simulation training. The authors compared, across consecutive academic years (2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010), mean pretraining scores and the percent of trainees who met or surpassed a minimum passing score (MPS). Results Mean internal jugular pretest scores improved from 46.7% (standard deviation = 20.8%) in 2007 to 55.7% (+/- 22.5%) in 2008 and 70.8% (+/- 22.4%) in 2009 (P < .001). Mean subclavian pretest scores changed from 48.3% (+/- 25.5%) in 2007 to 45.6% (+/- 31.0%) in 2008 and 63.6% (+/- 27.3%) in 2009 (P = .04). The percentage of residents who met or surpassed the MPS before training for internal jugular insertion was 7% in 2007, 16% in 2008, and 38% in 2009 (P = .004); for subclavian insertion, the percentage was 11% in 2007, 19% in 2008, and 38% in 2009 (P = .028). Conclusions SBE for senior residents had an effect on junior trainees, as evidenced by pretraining CVC insertion skill improvement across three consecutive years. SBE for a targeted group of residents has implications for skill acquisition among other trainees.

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

4.6
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