Defining the Nature of Augmented Feedback for Learning Intraosseous Access Skills in Simulation-Based Health Professions Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of health professions education, acquiring technical skills involves three stages: 1) receiving instructions, 2) engaging in practice, and 3) receiving feedback. Simulation serves as a valuable tool that encompasses all three stages, enhancing the effectiveness of health professions education. This work focuses on feedback, which can be categorized as intrinsic (perceived by the learner through their senses) or augmented (provided by an external perspective). Augmented feedback can take the form of knowledge of results (information regarding the outcome) or knowledge of performance (information about the actions leading to the outcome). The overall objective of this work was to evaluate the perceived efficacy of these types of feedback in learning technical skills using a simulation, specifically an intraosseous access simulator, among advanced care paramedics. The primary focus of this article and the initial step towards achieving the aforementioned objective of this work was to determine the possible knowledge of results and knowledge of performance that paramedic facilitators could offer to advanced care paramedics during the use of an existing intraosseous access simulator. This research was conducted following the design-based research framework, employing a combination of design thinking and Delphi methods to generate a comprehensive list of augmented feedback, in both the form of knowledge of results and knowledge of performance, that can be provided to advanced care paramedics while learning intraosseous access skills through a simulator. The design thinking session was carried out to generate an initial inventory of augmented feedback, which was then refined through two rounds of Delphi consensus-building with paramedic experts. This process resulted in an eight-step list of feedback for knowledge of results and knowledge of performance that can be delivered to advanced care paramedics by paramedic facilitators using an intraosseous access simulator.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".