Search

Abstract Background Simulation training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is effective but active practice time is limited given the large number of students and the learning effect size remains small. To improve learning during observation, the use of an observer tool (OT) has been advocated. The aim was to assess the value of OT to improve medical students' learning outcomes during CPR simulation training. Methods This prospective, randomized study took place during CPR training of medical students. The workshop targeted recognition of unconsciousness, absence of breathing, call for help, cardiac massage and defibrillation. Students practicing in dyads were randomized to use an OT (i.e., a checklist summarizing CPR skills and step-by-step actions) (OT +) or not (OT-) when observing others. At the end of the training, the global performance of the dyad was assessed by an evaluator using the OT checklist (primary outcome). The non-technical skills (NTS), chest compression quality, perceived improvement in knowledge and skills and knowledge score (MCQ) were also recorded. Results The student dyads were included (OT + : n = 40 and OT-: n = 41). Immediately after training, the global performance was similar between the two groups: OT + : 24 [23—25] and OT-: 23 [21—24] (out of 25), p = 0.052. However, better learning of breathing assessment and cardiac massage performance, as well as a better knowledge score, were found in the OT + group. No significant difference was observed for NTS or perceived improvement in knowledge and skills. Satisfaction was higher in the OT- group. Conclusions The use of an OT during CPR simulation did not show any pedagogical benefit on the global performance of medical students. However, a potential benefit was found for several important secondary outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm these positive results.

Abstract Background We aimed to measure the variance due to examination conditions during the first sessions of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) performed at a French medical school and identify factors associated with student success. Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study using data from the first three OSCEs sessions performed at Paris-Saclay medical school in 2021 and 2022. For all sessions (each organized in 5 parallel circuits), we tested a circuit effect using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for sex and the average academic level of students (according to written tests). Then, we studied the factors associated with student success at one station using a multivariate linear mixed-effects model, including the characteristics of students, assessors, and standardized patients. Results The study included three OSCEs sessions, with 122, 175, and 197 students and a mean (± SD) session score of 13.7(± 1.5)/20, 12.7(± 1.7)/20 and 12.7(± 1.9)/20, respectively. The percentage of variance due to the circuit was 6.5%, 18.2% (statistically significant), and 3.8%, respectively. For all sessions, the student’s average level and station scenario were significantly associated with the score obtained in a station. Still, specific characteristics of assessors or standardized patients were only associated with the student’s score in April 2021 (first session). Conclusion The percentage of the variance of students’ performance due to the examination conditions was significant in one out of three of the first OSCE sessions performed at Paris-Saclay medical school. This result seems more related to individual behaviors rather than specific characteristics of assessors or standardized patients, highlighting the need to continue training teaching teams. National clinical trial number Not applicable.

Abstract Background Central venous catheter (CVC) insertion using simulation is an essential skill for anesthesiologists. Simulation training is an effective mean to master this skill. Given the large number of residents and the limited duration of training sessions, the active practice time is limited and residents remain observers of their colleagues for much of the session. To improve learning during observation periods, the use of an observer tool (OT) has been advocated but its educational effectiveness is not well defined. Methods Incoming anesthesia residents were randomized to use an OT (i.e. procedural skill-based checklist) (OT+) or not (OT-) when observing other residents during a simulation bootcamp. The primary outcome was a composite score (total 60 points) evaluating CVC procedural skills rated immediately after the training. This score covers theoretical knowledge explored by multiple choice questions (MCQs) (/20), perceived improvement in knowledge and skills (/20), perceived impact on future professional life (/10) and satisfaction (/10). Measurements were repeated 1 month later. Residents in each group recorded the number of CVCs placed and their clinical outcomes (attempts, complications) during the first month of their clinical rotation using a logbook. Results Immediately after training, the composite score was similar between the two groups: 45.3 ± 4.2 (OT+, n = 49) and 44.4 ± 4.8 (OT-, n = 42) (p = 0.323). Analysis of sub-items also showed no difference. Results at 1 month were not different between groups. Analysis of the logbook showed no difference between groups. No serious complications were reported. Conclusions The use of a procedural task-based OT by incoming anesthesia residents and used during CVC insertion simulation training was not associated with better learning outcomes, neither immediately after the session nor when re-evaluated 1 month later. The training at least once on simulator of all residents could limit the impact of OT. Further studies are necessary to define the place of OT in simulation training.

Abstract Background A serious game (SG) is a useful tool for nurse training. The objectives of this study were to assess validity evidence of a new SG designed to improve nurses’ ability to detect patient clinical deterioration. Methods The SG (LabForGames Warning) was developed through interaction between clinical and pedagogical experts and one developer. For the game study, consenting nurses were divided into three groups: nursing students (pre-graduate) (group S), recently graduated nurses (graduated < 2 years before the study) (group R) and expert nurses (graduated > 4 years before the study and working in an ICU) (group E). Each volunteer played three cases of the game (haemorrhage, brain trauma and obstructed intestinal tract). The validity evidence was assessed following Messick’s framework: content, response process (questionnaire, observational analysis), internal structure, relations to other variables (by scoring each case and measuring playing time) and consequences (a posteriori analysis). Results The content validity was supported by the game design produced by clinical, pedagogical and interprofessional experts in accordance with the French nurse training curriculum, literature review and pilot testing. Seventy-one nurses participated in the study: S (n = 25), R (n = 25) and E (n = 21). The content validity in all three cases was highly valued by group E. The response process evidence was supported by good security control. There was no significant difference in the three groups’ high rating of the game’s realism, satisfaction and educational value. All participants stated that their knowledge of the different steps of the clinical reasoning process had improved. Regarding the internal structure, the factor analysis showed a common source of variance between the steps of the clinical reasoning process and communication or the situational awareness errors made predominantly by students. No statistical difference was observed between groups regarding scores and playing time. A posteriori analysis of the results of final examinations assessing study-related topics found no significant difference between group S participants and students who did not participate in the study. Conclusion While it appears that this SG cannot be used for summative assessment (score validity undemonstrated), it is positively valued as an educational tool. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03092440

Abstract Background Early detection and response to patient deterioration influence patient prognosis. Nursing education is therefore essential. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the respective educational value of simulation by gaming (SG) and a traditional teaching (TT) method to improve clinical reasoning (CR) skills necessary to detect patient deterioration. Methods In a prospective multicenter study, and after consent, 2nd year nursing students were randomized into two groups: Simulation by gaming “SG”: the student played individually with a serious game consisting of 2 cases followed by a common debriefing with an instructor;Traditional Teaching “TT”: the student worked on the same cases in text paper format followed by a traditional teaching course with a PowerPoint presentation by an instructor. CR skill was measured by script concordance tests (80 SCTs, score 0–100) immediately after the session (primary outcome) and on month later. Other outcomes included students’ satisfaction, motivation and professional impact. Results One hundred forty-six students were randomized. Immediately after training, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 9 in SG group (n = 73) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 73) (p = 0.43). One month later, the SCTs scores were 59 ± 10 in SG group (n = 65) and 58 ± 8 in TT group (n = 54) (p = 0.77). Global satisfaction and motivation were highly valued in both groups although significantly greater in the SG group (p

Abstract Background Active learning methods, including low-fidelity simulation, are useful but the incremental learning effect of each method is however limited. We designed this study to assess if combining flipped classroom and the modified Peyton’s « 4-steps» method during procedural simulation (intervention group [IG]) would provide better learning results than simulation alone (control group [CG]) in the context of central venous catheter insertion training. Methods This prospective, single-center, and randomized study took place in 2017 in a single simulation center. All first year Anesthesiology residents of Ile de France area at the start of their residency were randomly included either in the IG or CG during a seminar aimed at providing initial procedural skills with low-fidelity simulation. A composite learning score which included knowledge MCQ and a questionnaire assessing satisfaction and value of the training session was recorded after training (primary outcome, /100). A randomized sub-group of learners of each group were video-recorded during central venous catheter insertion at the end of training and their skills were evaluated with validated tools, including a specific checklist and a global rating scale (GRS). Results Among 89 anesthesiology residents, 48 and 41 learners were randomized in the intervention and control groups respectively. Of the IG residents, 40/48 (83%) had read the learning material prior to the session. There was no significant difference regarding the composite outcome ([IG]= 81.1 vs [CG] = 80.5 /100 (p = 0.68)). Results of the post-session MCQ knowledge questionnaire were also non-significantly different. Residents were similarly satisfied and described a significant improvement of their knowledge and skills after training. Learners highly valued the training session as a mean to improve their future practice. No significant differences regarding checklist and GRS scores were observed. Conclusions A multimodal active learning strategy of procedural learning did not provide better learning outcomes when compared to a traditional simulation method. In both groups, satisfaction was high and perception of the acquired theoretical and practical knowledge was improved after training.

Abstract Background There are limited data to detail the perioperative anesthetic management and the incidence of postoperative respiratory complications among patients requiring an anesthetic procedure while being SARS-CoV-2 positive or suspected. Methods An observational multicenter cohort study was performed including consecutive patients who were SARS-CoV-2 confirmed or suspected and who underwent scheduled and emergency anesthesia between March 17 and May 26, 2020. Results A total of 187 patients underwent anesthesia with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed or suspected, with ultimately 135 (72.2%) patients positive and 52 (27.8%) negative. The median SOFA score was 2 [0; 5], and the median ARISCAT score was 49 [36; 67]. The major respiratory complications rate was 48.7% (n = 91) with 40.4% (n = 21) and 51.9% (n = 70) in the SARS-CoV-2–negative and –positive groups, respectively (p = 0.21). Among both positive and negative groups, patients with a high ARISCAT risk score (> 44) had a higher risk of presenting major respiratory complications (p