Impact of a 3-Month Recall Using High-Fidelity Simulation or Screen-Based Simulation on Learning Retention During Neonatal Resuscitation Training for Residents in Anesthesia and Intensive Care: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Retention capacities are dependent on the learning context. The optimal interval between two learning sessions to maintain a learner's knowledge is often a subject of discussion, along with the methodology being used. Screen-based simulation could represent an easy alternative for retraining in neonatal resuscitation. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefits of a 3-month recall session using high-fidelity simulation or screen-based simulation, assessed 6 months after an initial neonatal resuscitation training session among anesthesia and intensive care residents. Methods: All participating anesthesia and intensive care residents were volunteers, and they underwent training in the same session, which included a theoretical course and high-fidelity simulation. The attendees were then randomized into three groups: one with no 3-month recall, one with a high-fidelity simulation recall, and one with a screen-based simulation recall. To reassess the skills of each participant, a high-fidelity simulation was performed at 6 months. The primary outcomes included expert assessment of technical skills using the Neonatal Resuscitation Performance Evaluation score and nontechnical skills assessed by the Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills score. Secondary outcomes included a knowledge quiz and self-assessment of confidence. We compared the results between groups and analyzed intragroup progressions. Results: Twenty-eight participants were included in the study. No significant differences were observed between groups at the 6-month evaluation. However, we observed a significant improvement in theoretical knowledge and self-confidence among students over time. Regarding nontechnical skills, as evaluated by the Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills score, there was significant improvement between the initial training and the 6-month session in both recall groups (16 vs 12.8, P=.01 in the high-fidelity group; 16 vs 13.9, P=.05 in the simulation group; 14.7 vs 15.1, P=.50 in the control group). For technical skills assessed by the Neonatal Resuscitation Performance Evaluation score, a nonsignificant trend toward improvement was observed in the two recall groups, while a regression was observed in the control group (all Ps>.05). The increase in students' self-confidence was significant across all groups but remained higher in the two 3-month recall groups. Conclusions: Initial neonatal resuscitation training for anesthesia and intensive care residents leads to improved knowledge and self-confidence that persist at 6 months. A 3-month recall session, whether through high-fidelity simulation or screen-based simulation, improves nontechnical skills (eg, situation management and team communication) and technical skills. Screen-based simulation, which saves time and resources, appears to be an effective educational method for recall after initial training. The study outcomes justify the need for further studies with larger sample sizes to confirm the promising role of serious games in educational programs for medical students.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».