A comparison of in-person vs. asynchronous learning with self-care patient cases.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a live laboratory setting compared to an asynchronous session in a crossover teaching design on knowledge and confidence in self-care review topics. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Pharmacy students (n = 88) participated in a crossover designed laboratory session where they either attended a live, active-learning laboratory session on self-care review topics, followed by a virtual, asynchronous self-care simulation or vice versa. Sessions were held one week apart. Pre- and post-assessments were administered that contained knowledge and confidence questions as well as student perceptions on the teaching modalities. FINDINGS: Of the 88 students who participated in the study, 67 (76.1%) were included in the study findings. Post-assessment knowledge and confidence significantly increased after both the live, active-learning session and the asynchronous simulation. The majority of students (85%) indicated that they preferred the in-person activity. SUMMARY: Students preferred the live, active-learning laboratory for reviewing self-care concepts. However, knowledge and confidence improved using either teaching modality, therefore, in institutions where resources are limited, the virtual, asynchronous activity may be useful especially if facilitators and/or budget are limited.

Comparison of sudden cardiac arrest resuscitation performance data obtained from in-hospital incident chart review and in situ high-fidelity medical simulation.

INTRODUCTION: High-fidelity medical simulation of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) presents an opportunity for systematic probing of in-hospital resuscitation systems. Investigators developed and implemented the SimCode program to evaluate simulation's ability to generate meaningful data for system safety analysis and determine concordance of observed results with institutional quality data. METHODS: Resuscitation response performance data were collected during in situ SCA simulations on hospital medical floors. SimCode dataset was compared with chart review-based dataset of actual (live) in-hospital resuscitation system performance for SCA events of similar acuity and complexity. RESULTS: 135 hospital personnel participated in nine SimCode resuscitations between 2006 and 2008. Resuscitation teams arrived at 2.5+/-1.3 min (mean+/-SD) after resuscitation initiation, started bag-valve-mask ventilation by 2.8+/-0.5 min, and completed endotracheal intubations at 11.3+/-4.0 min. CPR was performed within 3.1+/-2.3 min; arrhythmia recognition occurred by 4.9+/-2.1 min, defibrillation at 6.8+/-2.4 min. Chart review data for 168 live in-hospital SCA events during a contemporaneous period were extracted from institutional database. CPR and defibrillation occurred later during SimCodes than reported by chart review, i.e., live: 0.9+/-2.3 min (p<0.01) and 2.1+/-4.1 min (p<0.01), respectively. Chart review noted fewer problems with CPR performance (simulated: 43% proper CPR vs. live: 98%, p<0.01). Potential causes of discrepancies between resuscitation response datasets included sample size and data limitations, simulation fidelity, unmatched SCA scenario pools, and dissimilar determination of SCA response performance by complementary reviewing methodologies. CONCLUSION: On-site simulations successfully generated SCA response measurements for comparison with live resuscitation chart review data. Continued research may refine simulation's role in quality initiatives, clarify methodologic discrepancies and improve SCA response.