Virtual spirometry training is comparable to face-to-face training learning outcomes

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In response to COVID-19 restrictions, the Queensland Health Spirometry Training Program initiated virtual (V) workshops, as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) training. The program included online pre-reading, a practical skills workshop (V or F2F), and a post-workshop workplace portfolio assessment. The aims of this study were to compare F2F and virtual training (1) portfolio assessment outcomes, and (2) post-workshop confidence with spirometry practice. Method(s) (1) Between 2019 and 2022, health practitioners (HP) who attended F2F or virtual workshops submitted a post-workshop workplace portfolio. The portfolio spirometry reports were assessed against the ATS/ERS spirometry standards (Graham et al., 2019). Three spirometry trials in each report were scored for acceptability criteria fast start of test (SOT 1), start of test sharp peak (SOT 2), middle of test (MOT) and end of forced expiration (EOFE). Repeatability criteria (FEV 1 and FVC), technical comments and interpretation were also assessed. Mean scores for each criterion were compared between F2F and virtual workshop portfolio tests, using univariable linear regression analysis. (2) After F2F or virtual training, participants rated their confidence levels with spirometry performance, understanding the test, and quality assurance, using a 5-point Likert scale (very confident to not confident). Result(s) 138 HPs attended either F2F or virtual workshops and 62 portfolios were assessed. There were no significant differences (all p values >0.05) in the portfolio scores between F2F (n = 30) and virtual (n = 32) training for spirometry acceptability, repeatability, and reporting criteria. Post-workshop confidence levels with spirometry performance, understanding the test, and quality assurance were not significantly different (all p values >0.05) between the two training formats (n = 138). Comparison of scores between F2F (n = 30) versus V (n = 32) Scoring criteria Maximal score Mean difference 95% CI p value Acceptability SOT 1 3 0.014 -0.130 0.158 0.848 SOT 2 3 -0.023 -0.169 0.124 0.758 MOT 3 -0.024 -0.162 0.114 0.731 EOFE 3 0.053 -0.038 0.143 0.250 Repeatability FEV 1 1 0.039 -0.009 0.087 0.111 FVC 1 0.024 -0.035 0.084 0.421 Reporting Comments 2 0.019 -0.175 0.213 0.846 Interpretation 1 0.059 -0.009 0.127 0.087 Conclusion(s) This study provides confidence that the virtual spirometry training did not significantly impact learning outcomes compared with the F2F format.