Keywords
Medical education
High fidelity simulation training
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of high- and low-fidelity simulation in training cardiovascular emergencies. Methods: An experimental study was carried out with 54 medical students who were randomly assigned to 9 groups of 6 students each. These groups were allocated to either the “high” or “low” fidelity group, using a randomization sequence with permuted blocks. Practical learning was assessed using the same clinical case, and team performance was evaluated using a pre-validated learning checklist consisting of 38 items, assessed on a 4-point Likert scale. The Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney independent sample test was used to compare the mean differences in the acquisition of practical performance. A p-value < 0.05 was used to determine the significance of this study. Results: Participants in both groups obtained significantly high scores, regardless of equipment fidelity (low-fidelity group: 3.83 ± 0.18; high-fidelity group: 3.63 ± 0.10; p = 0.14). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in the results. This study reinforces that the use of a structured project with a student technical base and teacher training in the method have the same impact on student involvement, retention, and learning.
References
BASHIR G. Technology and medicine: the evolution of virtual reality simulation in laparoscopic training. Medical Teacher, 2010; 32(7): 558-561.
BRANDÃO CFS, et al. Recomendações para contenção de riscos biológicos para atividades de ensino baseado em simulação durante e após a pandemia pela Covid-19. Revista Eletrônica Acervo Saúde, 2022; 15(4): e10077.
BRANDÃO CFS, et al. Centros de Simulação e projeto pedagógico: dois lados da mesma moeda. Sci Med. 2018;28(1):ID28709.
CANNON-DIEBL MR. Simulation in healthcare and nursing state of the science. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 2009; 32(2): 128-136.
CHENG A, et al. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 2014; 48(7): 657-666.
CHENG A, et al. The use of high-fidelity manikins for advanced life support training—a systematic review and meta- analysis. Resuscitation, 2015; 93: 142-9.
CHOW S, et al. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2008.
COOK DA, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 2011; 306(9): 978-988.
COOPER JB, TAQUETI VR. A brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 2004; 13(Suppl 1): i11-i18.
DEERING S, ROWLAND J. Obstetric emergency simulation. Seminars in Perinatology, 2013; 37(3): 179-188.
FINAN E, et al. High-fidelity simulator technology may not be superior to traditional low-fidelity equipment for neonatal resuscitation training. Journal of Perinatology, 2012; 32(4): 287-92.
HESLOP L, et al. Undergraduate student nurses’ expectations and their self-reported preparedness for the graduate year role. J. Adv. Nurse, 2001; 36,626–634.
HOADLEY TA. Learning advanced cardiac life support: a comparison study of the effects of low- and high-fidelity simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 2009; 30(2): 91-95.
ILGEN JS, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Emergency Medicine, 2013; 20(2): 117-127.
ISSENBERG SB, et al. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 2005; 27(1): 10-28.
KARDONG-EDGREN S, et al. Does simulation fidelity improve student test scores? Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2007; 3(1): e21-e24.
LO BM, et al. Comparison of traditional versus high-fidelity simulation in the retention of ACLS knowledge. Resuscitation, 2011; 82(11): 1440-1443.
MASSOTH C, et al. High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Medical Education, 2019; 19(1):29.
MCFETRICH J, PRICE C. Simulators and scenarios: training nurses in emergency care. Medical Education, 2006; 40: 1139.
MCGAGHIE WC, et al. Effect of practice on standardised learning outcomes in simulation-based medical education. Medical Education, 2006; 40(8): 792-797.
MEANEY PA, et al. Rhythms and outcomes of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest. Critical Care Medicine, 2010; 38(1): 101-108.
MENDIS S (ed.), et al. Global Atlas on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.
MILLER RB. Psychological considerations in the design of training equipment. Ohio: Write Patterson Air Force Base; Write Air Development Center, 1954. (Report no. WADC-TR54-563, AD 71202).
NADKARNI VN, et al. First documented rhythm and clinical outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest among children and adults. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006; 295(1): 50-7.
NEILL MA, WOTTON K. High-fidelity simulation debriefing in nursing education: A literature review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2011; 7(5): e161-e168.
NICHOL G, et al. Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 300(12): 1423-1431.
O’BRIEN G, et al. Interns' perceptions of performance and confidence in participating in and managing simulated and real cardiac arrest situations. Medical Teacher, 2001; 23(4): 389-395.
PEBERDY MA, et al. National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators.Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest during nights and weekends. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299(7): 785-792.
PERSSON J. A review of the design and development processes of simulation for training in healthcare - A technology-centered versus a human-centered perspective. Applied ergonomics, 2017; 58: 314-326.
QURESHI Z, MAXWELL S. Has bedside teaching had its day? Advances in Health Sciences Education: theory and practice, 2012; 17(2): 301-304.
RODGERS DL, et al. The effect of high-fidelity simulation on educational outcomes in an Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support course. Simulation in Healthcare, 2009; 4(4): 200-206.
RUDOLPH JW, et al. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simulation in Healthcare, 2014; 9(6): 339-349.
SHARED S, et al. Interprofessional teamwork skills as predictors of clinical outcomes in simulated healthcare setting. Journal of Allied Health, 2013; 42(1): e1-e6.
SHERER Y, et al. A comparison of clinical simulation and case study presentation on nurse practitioner students’ knowledge and confidence in managing a cardiac event. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 2007; 4(1): 22.