Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Simulation is an education modality known to support clinical skill development. Unfortunately, access to simulation has been challenging, both prior to and during the pandemic. Simulation via telepractice, i.e., “telesimulation”, has emerged, but little is known about whether outcomes are comparable to in-person simulation. This study compared in-person versus telesimulation learner outcomes in an infant feeding scenario. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes between novice and experienced participants.This pragmatic randomized controlled trial included speech pathologists who could attend if randomized to the in-person modality. Block randomization matched participants with < 6 months’ infant feeding experience to those with > 6 months experience (2:1 ratio) into telesimulation or in-person simulation. Measures of clinical reasoning, confidence/anxiety, and satisfaction were collected, pre-, post-, and 4-weeks post-simulation.Overall, 39 clinicians completed either in-person simulation (n = 17) or telesimulation training (n = 22), including 16 experienced and 23 novice learners. Both in-person and telesimulation groups achieved significant improvements across time in clinical reasoning, self-reported confidence, and anxiety. The extent of change in clinical reasoning, confidence and anxiety was comparable between the telesimulation and in-person simulation groups. Comparing by experience, novice-level participants reported significantly greater changes in confidence and anxiety than experienced participants. Satisfaction levels were high regardless of simulation modality or experience.Participants in telesimulation and in-person simulation achieved similar improvements in the primary outcome measure of clinical reasoning, had comparable improvements in self-perceived confidence and anxiety, and demonstrated high satisfaction levels. Telesimulation is a promising means to improve clinician access to simulation training in infant feeding.
Simulation is an education modality known to support clinical skill development. Unfortunately, access to simulation has been challenging, both prior to and during the pandemic. Simulation via telepractice, i.e., “telesimulation”, has emerged, but little is known about whether outcomes are comparable to in-person simulation. This study compared in-person versus telesimulation learner outcomes in an infant feeding scenario. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes between novice and experienced participants.This pragmatic randomized controlled trial included speech pathologists who could attend if randomized to the in-person modality. Block randomization matched participants with < 6 months’ infant feeding experience to those with > 6 months experience (2:1 ratio) into telesimulation or in-person simulation. Measures of clinical reasoning, confidence/anxiety, and satisfaction were collected, pre-, post-, and 4-weeks post-simulation.Overall, 39 clinicians completed either in-person simulation (n = 17) or telesimulation training (n = 22), including 16 experienced and 23 novice learners. Both in-person and telesimulation groups achieved significant improvements across time in clinical reasoning, self-reported confidence, and anxiety. The extent of change in clinical reasoning, confidence and anxiety was comparable between the telesimulation and in-person simulation groups. Comparing by experience, novice-level participants reported significantly greater changes in confidence and anxiety than experienced participants. Satisfaction levels were high regardless of simulation modality or experience.Participants in telesimulation and in-person simulation achieved similar improvements in the primary outcome measure of clinical reasoning, had comparable improvements in self-perceived confidence and anxiety, and demonstrated high satisfaction levels. Telesimulation is a promising means to improve clinician access to simulation training in infant feeding.
Introduction Online education games are gaining ground in health profession education, yet there is limited literature on its costs. This study is an economic evaluation of the substitution of a face-to-face (F2F) workshop with an online escape room game teaching the same content. Methods A traditional F2F workshop on hepatitis management was conducted with 364 students in 2021 and was compared with a virtual self-run escape room game called Hepatitiscape™, which was used by 417 students in 2022. The outcomes were final examination and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores for hepatitis stations. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to compare costs and outcomes. Student perceptions of the delivery of Hepatitiscape™ were also captured using an online questionnaire. Results Delivering the hepatitis case workshop via Hepatitiscape™ yielded an additional 4.77% increase in the final examination score and a 21.04% increase in the OSCE score at an additional cost of AUD $4212 in the first year compared with F2F delivery. This equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD 883 per additional score of final examination and AUD 200 per additional score of OSCE for hepatitis stations. Hepatitiscape™ became cost saving from the second year onward. Student perception data revealed their recall of content was higher owing to the iterative design of the gaming elements. Conclusions Hepatitiscape™ is likely to be a cost-effective strategy to deliver workshops that are routinely delivered F2F to test knowledge-based constructs. In addition, virtual gaming has a logistical advantage over F2F delivery in that it enhances student participation from remote locations and allows for better control and flexibility of content delivery with increasing or decreasing cohort sizes, and can have potential long-term sustainable savings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.