Comparison of Outcomes of Two Skills‐teaching Methods on Lay‐rescuers’ Acquisition of Infant Basic Life Support Skills
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine if lay-rescuers' acquisition of infant basic life support (BLS) skills would be better when skills teaching consisted of videotaping practice and providing feedback on performances, compared to conventional skills-teaching and feedback methods. METHODS: This pilot-exploratory, single-blind, prospective, controlled, randomized study was conducted on November 12, 2007, at the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. The population under study consisted of all first-year medical students enrolled in the 2007-2008 year. BLS training is part of their mandatory introductory course in emergency medicine. Twenty-three students with previous BLS training were excluded. The remaining 71 were randomized into four and then two groups, with final allocation to an intervention and control group of 18 and 16 students, respectively. All the students participated in infant BLS classroom teaching. Those in the intervention group practiced skills acquisition independently, and four were videotaped while practicing. Tapes were reviewed by the group and feedback was provided. Controls practiced using conventional teaching and feedback methods. After 3 hours, all subjects were videotaped performing an unassisted, lone-rescuer, infant BLS resuscitation scenario. A skills assessment tool was developed. It consisted of 25 checklist items, grouped into four sections: 6 points for "categories" (with specific actions in six categories), 14 points for "scoring" (of accuracy of performance of each action), 4 points for "sequence" (of actions within a category), and 1 point for "order" of resuscitation (complete and well-sequenced categories). Two blinded expert raters were given a workshop on the use of the scoring tool. They further refined it to increase scoring consistency. The main outcome of the study was defined as evidence of better skills acquisition in overall skills in the four sections and in the specific skills sets for actions in any individual category. Data analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Means and mean percentages were greater in the intervention group in all four sections compared to controls: categories (5.72 [95.33%] and 4.69 [92.66%]), scoring (10.57 [75.50%] and 7.41 [43.59%]), sequence (2.28 [57.00%] and 1.66 [41.50%]), and order of resuscitation (0.96 [96.00%] and 0.19 [19.00%]). The means and mean percentages of the actions (skill sets) in the intervention group were also larger than those of controls in five out of six categories: assessing responsiveness (1.69 [84.50%] and 1.13 [56.50%]), breathing technique (1.69 [93.00%] and 1.13 [47.20%]), chest compression technique (3.19 [77.50%] and 1.84 [46.00%]), activating emergency medical services (EMS) (3.00 [100.00%] and 2.81 [84.50%]), and resuming cardiopulmonary resuscitation (0.97 [97.00%] and 0.47 [47.00%]). These results demonstrate better performance in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of videotaped practice and feedback for the acquisition of overall infant BLS skills and of specific skill sets is effective. Observation and participation in the feedback and assessment of nonexperts attempting infant BLS skills appeared to improve the ability of this group of students to perform the task.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».