Board #225 - Program Innovation Development of Epidural Analgesia Education for Health Professional Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives Research indicates nurses’ knowledge related to epidural analgesia and complications is poor and outweighs skill performance and decision-making.1-2 Pre-licensure nursing students receive no epidural training despite exposure in clinical settings and potential for devastating adverse effects. Education for nurses is provided through an authorization process testing knowledge and skill, but not ability to critically think through adverse events. The objective of this pilot project with senior nursing students was to develop a workshop on assessment and care of patients receiving epidural analgesia. Our overall objective is to fill a current regional gap in regulated health professional learners’ education with the ultimate goal of improving patient safety. Our specific evaluation questions are the following: 1) Is the use of a novel instructional module using SPs a feasible approach for pre-registration health professional students to learn the safe care of individuals receiving epidural analgesia? 2) Does progression through the learning process of knowledge through skills acquisition to implementation using SPs improve the pre-registration health professional students’ application of the critical assessment components for individuals receiving epidural analgesia? Description Content of the learning guide and workshop included care of the patient receiving continuous or intermittent epidural as well as the side effects and complications associated with these modalities. The three-hour workshop was led by a nurse practitioner from the Acute Pain Management Service of the local acute care hospital. In addition to traditional didactic teaching, sessions with standardized patients (SPs) were included to enhance learner application of knowledge and skill to clinical scenarios requiring critical thinking. The workshop session consisted of: 1) large group didactic session and demonstration; 2) small group practice scenarios with SPs and feedback from the educators; and 3) individual learner evaluation with SPs. The workshop allowed learners repeated opportunities to practice skills and critical thinking associated with safe monitoring of patients receiving epidural analgesia within three practice standardized patient scenarios and one of three assessment scenarios. Skill and critical thinking were evaluated using a performance checklist and the Sweeney-Clark’s Simulation Performance Rubric.3 A pre- and post-epidural knowledge quiz (2) and survey evaluated confidence and satisfaction with the learning module. Conclusion Forty-eight senior (4th year BNSc) nursing students participated in the pilot implementation of the workshop. All were females between the ages of 20 and 24 years. Learner confidence with epidural analgesia increased significantly (p=0.001) following participation in the module and learner knowledge increased non-significantly (p=.341). Learners performed an average of 86 % of the skills checklist items correctly. One learner (3.4%) performed at a novice critical thinking level; 25 (58.1%) performed at an advanced beginner level, and 17 (39.5%) performed at a competent level. Learner satisfaction was very high. This pilot project demonstrated an epidural analgesia workshop using SPs is feasible and results in high satisfaction and positive learning outcomes with senior nursing students. As a result, the session will become mandatory for all nursing students in the fall 2014 semester. Plans are also underway to implement the module as an interprofessional educational event for prelicensure nursing, medical and physiotherapy students. The overall goal of this line of research is to contribute to improved patient safety by enhancing critical thinking skills and better preparing health professions students to transition to their professional practice roles. References 1. Sandie CL, Heindel LJ. The knowledge and attitudes of nonanesthesia nurses regarding postoperative epidural analgesia. AANA Journal 1999;67(5):455-460. 2. Bird A, Wallis M, Chaboyer W. Registered nurses’ and midwives’ knowledge of epidural analgesia. Collegian 2009;16(4):193-200. 3. Gantt, LT. Using the Clark Simulation Evaluation Rubric with associate degree and baccalaureate nursing students. Nurs Educ Perspect 2010;31(2):101-105. Disclosures None
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».