OBJECTIVE: A pilot study exploring the differences between high- and low-fidelity mannequins in the assessment of clinical performance. METHODS: Standardized clinical scenarios were used to test 12 intensive care paramedics (ICP). Each ICP was randomly assigned to a scenario using either a high-fidelity (SimMan) or low-fidelity mannequin (Laerdal Heart Start 2000), followed by a crossover assessment using the alternative scenario. We examined both the objective and subjective outcomes. Objective performance was assessed by three independent assessors, all accredited Advanced Paediatric Life Support instructors. Subjective outcomes were measured by assessment questionnaires and a rating scale. RESULTS: The overall proportion that passed the high-fidelity mannequin scenario was 0.47 compared with 0.58 in the low-fidelity mannequin scenario. The difference was -0.11 (95% CI -0.32-0.11). The subjective outcomes were charted and presented within the article. The ICP preferred the use of high-fidelity mannequin for assessment purpose. CONCLUSION: There was no significant objective difference between the two mannequins.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A pilot study exploring the differences between high- and low-fidelity mannequins in the assessment of clinical performance. METHODS: Standardized clinical scenarios were used to test 12 intensive care paramedics (ICP). Each ICP was randomly assigned to a scenario using either a high-fidelity (SimMan) or low-fidelity mannequin (Laerdal Heart Start 2000), followed by a crossover assessment using the alternative scenario. We examined both the objective and subjective outcomes. Objective performance was assessed by three independent assessors, all accredited Advanced Paediatric Life Support instructors. Subjective outcomes were measured by assessment questionnaires and a rating scale. RESULTS: The overall proportion that passed the high-fidelity mannequin scenario was 0.47 compared with 0.58 in the low-fidelity mannequin scenario. The difference was -0.11 (95% CI -0.32-0.11). The subjective outcomes were charted and presented within the article. The ICP preferred the use of high-fidelity mannequin for assessment purpose. CONCLUSION: There was no significant objective difference between the two mannequins.
Authors: Per P Bredmose; Karel Habig; Gareth Davies; Gareth Grier; David J Lockey Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Peadar S Waters; Terri McVeigh; Brian D Kelly; Gerard T Flaherty; Dara Devitt; Kevin Barry; Michael J Kerin Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 2.463