Team Training in the Neonatal Resuscitation Program for Interns: Teamwork and Quality of Resuscitations

Thomas, Eric J.; Williams, Amber; Reichman, Eric F.; Lasky, Robert E.; Crandell, Sharon S.; Taggart, William R.

doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1635

Cited by 139 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…47,[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] A meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials assessing knowledge at course conclusion demonstrated no significant benefit of training with high-fidelity manikins compared with low-fidelity manikins. 47,110,111,[116][117][118]120,121 This is supported by 1 additional nonrandomized trial demonstrating no substantial benefit of high-fidelity training on knowledge acquisition.…”

Section: Manikin Fidelity Eit 623 -Updatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part 14: Education

Bhanji¹,

Donoghue²,

Wolff³

et al. 2015

Circulation

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Manikin Fidelity Eit 623 -Updatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Part 14: Education

Bhanji¹,

Donoghue²,

Wolff³

et al. 2015

Circulation

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When inductively searching for conceptual themes shared across studies, we identified 7 studies comparing high with low physical realism simulation as part of the educational intervention, and conducted a metaanalysis pooling the results of these studies. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] We narratively discuss the other studies with nonrecurrent themes. [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] …”

Section: Synthesis: Comparison Of Simulation Versus Other Types Of Tesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] compared the use of high versus low physical realism simulators for TES as an educational modality (Fig 4). Meta-analysis of these studies revealed pooled effects of small magnitude favoring high physical realism for nontime skills (4 studies; ES = 0.49; P , .001) and learner reactions (3 studies; ES = 0.70; P , .01).…”

Section: Comparison Of High Versus Low Physical Realism Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology-Enhanced Simulation and Pediatric Education: A Meta-analysis

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatrics has embraced technologyenhanced simulation (TES) as an educational modality, but its effectiveness for pediatric education remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics and evaluate the effectiveness of TES for pediatric education.METHODS: This review adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, key journals, and previous review bibliographies through May 2011 and an updated Medline search through October 2013 were conducted. Original research articles in any language evaluating the use of TES for educating health care providers at any stage, where the content solely focuses on patients 18 years or younger, were selected. Reviewers working in duplicate abstracted information on learners, clinical topic, instructional design, study quality, and outcomes. We coded skills (simulated setting) separately for time and nontime measures and similarly classified patient care behaviors and patient effects. RESULTS:We identified 57 studies (3666 learners) using TES to teach pediatrics. Effect sizes (ESs) were pooled by using a random-effects model. Among studies comparing TES with no intervention, pooled ESs were large for outcomes of knowledge, nontime skills (eg, performance in simulated setting), behaviors with patients, and time to task completion (ES = 0.80-1.91). Studies comparing the use of high versus low physical realism simulators showed small to moderate effects favoring high physical realism (ES = 0.31-0.70).CONCLUSIONS: TES for pediatric education is associated with large ESs in comparison with no intervention. Future research should include comparative studies that identify optimal instructional methods and incorporate pediatric-specific issues into educational interventions.

show abstract

“…In fact, several studies have reported that the improvement in individual technical skills is no longer significant at 6 months after an intervention. 28 Our study evaluated the efficiency of resuscitation performed on a manikin; however, the impact in real-life neonatal resuscitation remains unknown. In other words, the study reached the third level of Kirkpatrick' s model to evaluate training programs.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

In Situ Simulation Training for Neonatal Resuscitation: An RCT

Rubio-Gurung¹,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: High-fidelity simulation improves individual skills in neonatal resuscitation. Usually, training is performed in a simulation center. Little is known about the impact of in situ training on overall team performance. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:In situ high-fidelity simulation training of 80% of a maternity' s staff significantly improved overall team performance in neonatal resuscitation (technical skills and teamwork). Fewer hazardous events occurred, and delay in improving the heart rate was shorter. abstract OBJECTIVES: High-fidelity simulation is an effective tool in teaching neonatal resuscitation skills to professionals. We aimed to determine whether in situ simulation training (for ∼80% of the delivery room staff) improved neonatal resuscitation performed by the staff at maternities. METHODS:A baseline evaluation of 12 maternities was performed: a random sample of 10 professionals in each unit was presented with 2 standardized scenarios played on a neonatal high-fidelity simulator. The medical procedures were video recorded for later assessments. The 12 maternities were then randomly assigned to receive the intervention (a 4-hour simulation training session delivered in situ for multidisciplinary groups of 6 professionals) or not receive it. All maternities were evaluated again at 3 months after the intervention. The videos were assessed by 2 neonatologists blinded to the pre-/postintervention as well as to the intervention/control groups. The performance was assessed using a technical score and a team score. RESULTS:After intervention, the median technical score was significantly higher for scenarios 1 and 2 for the intervention group compared with the control group (P = .01 and 0.004, respectively), the median team score was significantly higher (P , .001) for both scenarios. In the intervention group, the frequency of achieving a heart rate .90 per minute at 3 minutes improved significantly (P = .003), and the number of hazardous events decreased significantly (P , .001). CONCLUSIONS:In situ simulation training with multidisciplinary teams can effectively improve technical skills and teamwork in neonatal resuscitation. Pediatrics 2014;134:e790-e797

show abstract

Team Training in the Neonatal Resuscitation Program for Interns: Teamwork and Quality of Resuscitations

Cited by 139 publications

References 12 publications

Part 14: Education

Part 14: Education

Technology-Enhanced Simulation and Pediatric Education: A Meta-analysis

In Situ Simulation Training for Neonatal Resuscitation: An RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About