RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Simulation debriefing influences learning from healthcare simulation activities. Health sciences educators must be competent in conducting simulation debriefing for healthcare students. A structured faculty development intervention for health sciences educators must be informed by educator needs to enhance its utility. This paper describes the needs of health sciences educators regarding simulation debriefing at a faculty of health sciences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel convergent mixed methods study design was applied on a selected population of 30 health sciences educators at the University (x) who integrate immersive simulation for first- to final-year students in their undergraduate programs. The Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing tool underpinned observations which informed the quantitative strand of the study, while semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of the qualitative strand. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Health sciences educators struggled to establish the learning environment for simulation (median 1), facilitate learning (median 3), and evaluate their debriefing activities. However, they were able to apply an appropriate approach toward simulation (median 4). They identified the need to be educated on the fundamentals of simulation-based education. CONCLUSION: A continuing professional development program must be developed aimed at transforming approaches toward facilitating learning, explaining the fundamentals of simulation-based education, modeling of best-practices related to debriefing, and applying appropriate strategies for evaluating debriefing activities.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) saves lives. Training on basic first aid manikins allows students to practice manoeuvres and provides realistic resistance to chest compressions. Conventional CPR has no real-time feedback to observe the quality of CPR. Quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (QCPR) is technology using wireless sensors embedded in the manikin to measure the effectiveness of core CPR components. This study compared the effectiveness of CPR training of final-year undergraduate medical students using electronic-feedback QCPR adult manikins and conventional adult manikins. The effectiveness of compressions was compared and return on investment was investigated. METHODS: In an experimental study, 53 students were divided into two groups using simple random sampling. The QCPR group practised CPR on the QCPR manikins. The CPR group practised on conventional CPR manikins. Both groups were allowed to practice for approximately 10 minutes. After the training session, both groups were tested using the QCPR manikin. Only chest compression performance in adult-sized manikins were measured, recorded and compared. RESULTS: The median flow fraction for the QCPR group was 78.0% (interquartile range (IQR) 63-89%) and for the CPR group 80.0% (IQR 74-85%). The median number of compressions for the QCPR group was 104 (IQR 101-109) and for the CPR group 107 (IQR 79-124). Both groups achieved a 100% compression rate with adequate depth. The maximum total effectiveness of both groups was 99%. No statistically significant difference was seen for the overall percentage of compression effectiveness between the groups. CONCLUSION: Participants achieved acceptable scores on most CPR compression metrics and complied with CPR guidelines in most cases. Efficacy of CPR training on conventional and QCPR manikins was comparable. CPR training in low resource settings can be just as effective on conventional manikins. Immediate feedback technology adds value to the training experience, allowing for individuals to adjust for deviations to set standards.
