Simulation versus live tissue training randomised trial for ECMO proficiency: is one better than the other?

Autor:	Mu T; Pediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Garcia-Choudary T; Clinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Staudt A; Clinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Tyree M; Pediatrics, Center for Neonatal Care, Advent Health for Children, Orlando, Florida, USA., Valdez-Delgado K; Clinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Caldwell N; Clinical Research Support, US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Carr N; Pediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Borgman M; Pediatrics, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, Texas, USA., Delaney H; Pediatrix Medical Group, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning [BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn] 2020 Sep 04; Vol. 7 (4), pp. 223-229. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Sep 04 (Print Publication: 2021).
DOI:	10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000682
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a classic low-volume high-risk procedure that requires just in time and/or refresher training through animal or simulation modalities. This manuscript evaluated the performance of ECMO personnel trained with both modalities to determine which is better suited for ECMO skills training. Methods: Participants (physicians, nurses and respiratory/medical technicians) completed a series of ECMO scenarios with synthetic tissue cannulation task trainer as well as a live tissue model. Objective performance quality was based on task completion using a validated ECMO skills assessment tool. Results: Thirty-eight individuals completed this study. Participants completed individual scenario tasks 3 min faster using the simulator (26 min vs 29 min; p=0.03). No differences were seen in percentage of individual tasks completed. In the group scenarios, participants completed a higher percentage of critical tasks using the simulator (97%) versus the animal model (91%; p=0.05), but no differences were seen in task completion times. Additionally, no differences were seen in either lab-based or participants' prelab cognitive scores. Conclusions: Regardless of their self-assessment or experience, participants' objective performances were similar among both animal and simulation labs. Task completion times were quicker with simulation model. The distinction between simulation versus animal model may be less important as both demonstrate benefit in development of and/or maintaining skill competency. In the era of questioning the need for and costs of live tissue training, expanding the role of simulation may achieve similar training goals. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu