OBJECTIVE: We performed a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the retention of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) knowledge between high-fidelity simulation training (HFST) and traditional training (TT) in medical students. METHODS:Medical students were randomized to HFST or TT for their ACLS training. Students were then tested on 2 different mega-code scenarios immediately after their training and then 1-year later. A survey was performed asking their satisfaction of ACLS training and confidence of ACLS knowledge with a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS:93 students were randomized with 86 completing the study (HFST=45, TT=41). The HFST group scored a higher percentage correct on initial testing than the TT group (83% vs. 70%, P<0.0001). However at 1-year follow up, both groups performed the same (66% vs. 66%, P=0.84). Satisfaction with training was higher with the HFST compared to the TT group (9.0 vs. 7.8, P<0.0001). Confidence in ACLS knowledge between HFST and TT groups were similar at baseline (6.9 vs. 6.5, P=0.18) and at 1-year (4.8 vs. 4.5, P=0.46). CONCLUSION: Students demonstrated greater ACLS knowledge initially with HFST than with TT. However, after 1-year, both groups performed the same. Satisfaction with training was higher with HFST compared to TT. Confidence in ACLS knowledge was the same initially and decreased similarly over a 1-year time period regardless of the type of ACLS training. Further studies will need to determine optimal strategies to retain ACLS knowledge.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We performed a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the retention of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) knowledge between high-fidelity simulation training (HFST) and traditional training (TT) in medical students. METHODS: Medical students were randomized to HFST or TT for their ACLS training. Students were then tested on 2 different mega-code scenarios immediately after their training and then 1-year later. A survey was performed asking their satisfaction of ACLS training and confidence of ACLS knowledge with a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: 93 students were randomized with 86 completing the study (HFST=45, TT=41). The HFST group scored a higher percentage correct on initial testing than the TT group (83% vs. 70%, P<0.0001). However at 1-year follow up, both groups performed the same (66% vs. 66%, P=0.84). Satisfaction with training was higher with the HFST compared to the TT group (9.0 vs. 7.8, P<0.0001). Confidence in ACLS knowledge between HFST and TT groups were similar at baseline (6.9 vs. 6.5, P=0.18) and at 1-year (4.8 vs. 4.5, P=0.46). CONCLUSION: Students demonstrated greater ACLS knowledge initially with HFST than with TT. However, after 1-year, both groups performed the same. Satisfaction with training was higher with HFST compared to TT. Confidence in ACLS knowledge was the same initially and decreased similarly over a 1-year time period regardless of the type of ACLS training. Further studies will need to determine optimal strategies to retain ACLS knowledge.
Authors: C Eric McCoy; Asif Rahman; Juan C Rendon; Craig L Anderson; Mark I Langdorf; Shahram Lotfipour; Bharath Chakravarthy Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-12-12