Competencies in Basic Life Support after a Course with or without Rescue Ventilation: Historical Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Simplifying the international guidelines to improve skills after training and their retention over time has been one of the top priorities in recent years. The objective of our study was to compare the results of the practical skills learned during training in basic life support with and without pulmonary ventilation. METHODS: This was a comparative study of historical cohorts consisting of undergraduate students in health sciences. In one cohort, rescue breathing was performed, and in the other, it was not. The same data collection instruments were used for both cohorts: a test type examination of knowledge, data from a smart mannequin and an instructor observation grid. The means of knowledge and practical skills scores collected by the mannequin were compared using independent sample t-tests. RESULTS: 497 students were recruited without significant differences between the two cohorts. The mean scores for knowledge and skills determined by the instructor and the mannequin were statistically higher in the cohort that did not perform rescue breathing. CONCLUSION: Students who participated in basic life support training that did not include rescue breathing scored better than those who participated in training that included this skill. Training with only compressions simplifies the guidelines and increases learning and content retention.

Where do nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Research internationally shows that nursing students find dosage calculation difficult. Identifying the specific aspects of dose calculation procedures that are most commonly associated with errors would enable teaching to be targeted where it is most needed, thus improving students' calculation skills. The aim of this study was to analyze where specifically nursing students make mistakes when calculating drug doses. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of written examination papers including dosage calculation exercises from years 1, 2, and 3 of a nursing degree program. Exercises were analyzed for errors in relation to 23 agreed categories reflecting different kinds of calculation or steps in the calculation process. We conducted a descriptive and bivariate analysis of results, examining the relationship between the presence of errors and the proportion of correct and incorrect final answers. RESULTS: A total of 285 exam papers including 1034 calculation exercises were reviewed. After excluding those that had been left blank, a total of 863 exercises were analyzed in detail. A correct answer was given in 455 exercises (52.7%), although this varied enormously depending on the type of exercise: 89.2% of basic dose calculations were correct, compared with just 2.9% of those involving consideration of maximum concentration. The most common errors were related to unit conversion, more complex concepts such as maximum concentration and minimum dilution, or failure to contextualize the answer to the clinical case. Other frequent errors involved not extracting the key information from the question, not including the units when giving their answer, and not understanding the question. In general, fewer errors in basic dose calculations were made by students at later stages of the degree program. CONCLUSIONS: Students struggle with more complex dose calculations. The main errors detected were related to understanding the task and the key concepts involved, as well as not following the correct steps when solving the problem.

Comparación en la adquisición y retención de competencias en soporte vital entre formación uni o interdisciplinar. Estudio cuasiexperimental / Comparison between unidisciplinary or interdisciplinary acquisition of competencies in basic life support. Quasi-experimental study

No disponible

Estudio experimental aleatorizado de innovación docente que compara metodología mixta frente a presencial para la formación en soporte vital básico estándar del European Resuscitation Council / Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method

Objetivo. Evaluar los resultados de la formación mixta frente a la presencial en un curso de soporte vital básico/desfibrilador externo automático (SVB/DEA), así como su retención a los 9 meses. Método. Estudio experimental aleatorizado que compara los resultados de la formación en SVB/DEA entre un grupo control (GC) que recibió formación presencial de 4 horas frente a un grupo experimental (GE) que recibió formación en metodología mixta: 2 horas virtuales y 2 horas presenciales. Resultados. Participaron 89 alumnos (45 del GC y 44 del GE). Después de la formación, el GC obtuvo mejores puntuaciones en conocimientos [8,6 (DE 0,9) frente a 8,0 (DE 1,14), p = 0,013]. El GE obtuvo mejores puntuaciones en las habilidades del tiempo en segundos de "hands off" y en el porcentaje de la rexpansión completa del tórax. Los conocimientos decaen a los 9 meses, pero sin diferencias entre los dos grupos. La retención global baja de 8,31 (DE 1,1) a 6,04 (DE 1,6) (p = 0,001), en 9 meses, pero de forma similar en ambos grupos. En las habilidades prácticas no hubo diferencias entre los dos grupos ni al finalizar el curso ni a los 9 meses. Conclusiones. Con la metodología virtual se obtienen mejores resultados en algunos parámetros de las habilidades

Objective. To evaluate the immediate and 9-month results of blended versus standard training in basic life support and the use of an automatic external defibrillator (BLS/AED). Methods. Randomized trial comparing the results of standard BLS/AED training to blended training. The control group received 4 hours of standard instruction from a trainer and the experimental blended-training group received 2 hours of virtual training and 2 hours of in-person instruction. Results. Eighty-nine students participated, 45 in the control group and 44 in the experimental group. The controls achieved better mean (SD) knowledge scores immediately after training (8.6 [0.9] vs 8.0 [1.14] in the experimental group, P=.013). The blended training group scored better on certain skill markers (hands-off time in seconds and compressions followed by complete chest recoil). Participant knowledge had decreased at 9 months without significant between-group differences. Overall, retention fell from a score of 8.31 (1.1) to 6.04 (1.6) (P=.001) in 9 months and the loss was similar in the 2 groups. No differences in practical skills between the groups were observed at the end of the course or 9 months later. Conclusions. The blended training method led to better results on some skill ítems

Standard basic life support training of the European Resuscitation Council versus blended training: a randomized trial of a new teaching method. / Estudio experimental aleatorizado de innovación docente que compara metodología mixta frente a presencial para la formación en soporte vital básico estándar del European Resuscitation Council.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the immediate and 9-month results of blended versus standard training in basic life support and the use of an automatic external defibrillator (BLS/AED). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized trial comparing the results of standard BLS/AED training to blended training. The control group received 4 hours of standard instruction from a trainer and the experimental blended-training group received 2 hours of virtual training and 2 hours of in-person instruction. RESULTS: Eighty-nine students participated, 45 in the control group and 44 in the experimental group. The controls achieved better mean (SD) knowledge scores immediately after training (8.6 [0.9] vs 8.0 [1.14] in the experimental group, P=.013). The blended training group scored better on certain skill markers (hands-off time in seconds and compressions followed by complete chest recoil). Participant knowledge had decreased at 9 months without significant between-group differences. Overall, retention fell from a score of 8.31 (1.1) to 6.04 (1.6) (P=.001) in 9 months and the loss was similar in the 2 groups. No differences in practical skills between the groups were observed at the end of the course or 9 months later. CONCLUSION: The blended training method led to better results on some skill items.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar los resultados de la formación mixta frente a la presencial en un curso de soporte vital básico/desfibrilador externo automático (SVB/DEA), así como su retención a los 9 meses. METODO: Estudio experimental aleatorizado que compara los resultados de la formación en SVB/DEA entre un grupo control (GC) que recibió formación presencial de 4 horas frente a un grupo experimental (GE) que recibió formación en metodología mixta: 2 horas virtuales y 2 horas presenciales. RESULTADOS: Participaron 89 alumnos (45 del GC y 44 del GE). Después de la formación, el GC obtuvo mejores puntuaciones en conocimientos [8,6 (DE 0,9) frente a 8,0 (DE 1,14), p = 0,013]. El GE obtuvo mejores puntuaciones en las habilidades del tiempo en segundos de "hands off" y en el porcentaje de la rexpansión completa del tórax. Los conocimientos decaen a los 9 meses, pero sin diferencias entre los dos grupos. La retención global baja de 8,31 (DE 1,1) a 6,04 (DE 1,6) (p = 0,001), en 9 meses, pero de forma similar en ambos grupos. En las habilidades prácticas no hubo diferencias entre los dos grupos ni al finalizar el curso ni a los 9 meses. CONCLUSIONES: Con la metodología virtual se obtienen mejores resultados en algunos parámetros de las habilidades.