A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Randomized trial of a novel ACLS teaching tool: does it improve student performance? | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: Mounting evidence suggests that high-fidelity mannequin-based (HFMBS) and computer-based simulation are useful adjunctive educational tools for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) instruction. We sought to determine whether access to a supplemental, online computer-based ACLS simulator would improve students' performance on a standardized Mega Code using high-fidelity mannequin based simulation (HFMBS).

Methods: Sixty-five third-year medical students were randomized. Intervention group subjects (n = 29) each received a two-week access code to the online ACLS simulator, whereas the control group subjects (n = 36) did not. Primary outcome measures included students' time to initiate chest compressions, defibrillate ventricular fibrillation, and pace symptomatic bradycardia. Secondary outcome measures included students' subjective self-assessment of ACLS knowledge and confidence.

Results: Students with access to the online simulator on average defibrillated ventricular fibrillation in 112 seconds, whereas those without defibrillated in 149.9 seconds, an average of 38 seconds faster [p<.05]. Similarly, those with access to the simulator paced symptomatic bradycardia on average in 95.14 seconds whereas those without access paced on average 154.9 seconds a difference of 59.81 seconds [p<.05]. On a subjective 5-point scale, there was no difference in self-assessment of ACLS knowledge between the control (mean 3.3) versus intervention (mean 3.1) [p-value =.21]. Despite having outperformed the control group subjects in the standardized Mega Code test scenario, the intervention group felt less confident on a 5-point scale (mean 2.5) than the control group. (mean 3.2) [p<.05].

Conclusion: The reduction in time to defibrillate ventricular fibrillation and to pace symptomatic bradycardia among the intervention group subjects suggests that the online computer-based ACLS simulator is an effective adjunctive ACLS instructional tool.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251254PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.9.20149DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

acls simulator
8
group subjects
8
outcome measures
8
measures included
8
included students'
8
ventricular fibrillation
8
acls
5
randomized trial
4
trial novel
4
novel acls
4

Similar Publications