학술논문

Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial.
Document Type
Article
Source
Nursing in Critical Care. Jul2022, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p501-511. 11p.
Subject
*CARDIOPULMONARY resuscitation
*STATISTICS
*WORK experience (Employment)
*TEACHING methods
*HOSPITAL medical staff
*CONFIDENCE intervals
*LOG-rank test
*PEDIATRICS
*MANN Whitney U Test
*FISHER exact test
*LEARNING strategies
*RANDOMIZED controlled trials
*ABILITY
*TRAINING
*CARDIAC pacing
*EDUCATIONAL technology
*NURSES
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*CHI-squared test
*INTRACLASS correlation
*DEFIBRILLATORS
*STATISTICAL sampling
*ELECTRIC countershock
*DATA analysis
*DATA analysis software
*LONGITUDINAL method
*EMERGENCY medicine
Language
ISSN
1362-1017
Abstract
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]