MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2319352078 · doi:10.1097/01266021-200700210-00059

Using High Fidelity Simulation to Enhance Perceptions of Competency and Safe Practice in Anesthesia Assistants.

2007· article· en· W2319352078 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Cuddy, Paula Burns, Susan Dunington

Notice bibliographique

RevueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensMichener Institute
Organismes subventionnairesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Mots-clésThematic analysisCurriculumMedical educationAnxietyPerceptionMedicineHealth careFocus groupPatient safetyFidelityNursingPsychologyQualitative researchPedagogyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Michener Institute for Applied Health Sciences educates health professionals and addresses human resources requirements in healthcare in Ontario. In 2005 a new program for Anesthesia Assistants (AAs) was designed and implemented to address waiting times for surgical procedures. An AA under the supervision of an Anesthesiologist, can assist in the provision of anesthetic care, thereby potentially facilitating the flow of patients through operating rooms and reducing waiting times for procedures. High fidelity simulation was integrated throughout a 13 week didactic curriculum to aid in achieving competency in newly identified skill areas for AAs. A clinical education component followed the didactic phase of the program. The purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions of AA students as they pertained to enhancing competency and safe practice. METHODS: Following ethics approval, qualitative methodology was used to elicit the perceptions of the learners (n=24) in each of the first 2 cohorts of the Anesthesia Assistant program. Learners consisted of Registered Respiratory Therapists, all of whom had precious experience working in the Operating Room. Learners were asked to keep a reflective journal of their experience with learning via high fidelity simulation. Thematic analysis of was conducted of the learners’ reflective journals. In addition, a focus group was conducted following completion of the classroom/simulation portion of the curriculum. RESULTS: There were four major themes identified throughout the data: anxiety, comfort, patient safety and added value. Participants expressed initial anxiety with using simulation and a strong fear of being team leader. By week two, they began expressing their perceptions of the impact this method of training was having on their skill level and competency. Gaps in knowledge and weaknesses in skill demonstration were highlighted through simulation. Debriefing activities provided opportunities for formative feedback. By week six, most participants expressed a positive perception of their competency. They saw value in simulation use in the integration of skills and behaviours in a safe environment. They expressed gratitude that they were able to make mistakes during their learning process without endangering patients. By week six participants no longer expressed fear of assuming the role of team leader. While comfort with this role was widely variable over the first six weeks of the program, many participants expressed the desire to assume the role more frequently. Satisfaction with simulation as a method of teaching and evaluating AA competency based skills was strongly expressed in reflections and the focus group. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation activities integrated into the curriculum of an AA program were perceived as effective in enhancing skills and competency while maintaining patient safety. Participants were cognizant of the value of simulation with respect to both practice of new skills and assessment of competency. Although initially anxious about assuming the role of team leader, the simulation enhanced curriculum allowed opportunities to safely practice which resulted in increased comfort with this role. Further study could be done to explore the correlation between enhanced perception of competency and actual competency pre and post simulated learning experiences.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,461
Écart entre enseignants0,407 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareMême sujetSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207