BACKGROUND:Self-instruction video (SIV) has been widely explored as a teaching mode for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillation (AED), but not with other basic emergency skills. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of SIV in teaching other basic emergency skill in comparison with traditional face-to-face (FTF) methods. METHODS: Participants were randomized into SIV and FTF groups. Each group was assigned to learn basic airway management (BAM), cervical collar application (CCA), manual cardiac defibrillation (MCD), and emergency extremity splinting (EES) skills. Confidence level was assessed using questionnaires, and skills performances were assessed using calibrated-blinded assessors through an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). RESULTS:Forty-five participants took part in the assessment exercises. There were no significant differences between both groups, on all four skill categories. The mean OSCE-score of an individual category between the FTF-group vs. the SIV-group were as follows: BAM (10.23 ± 1.04 vs. 10.04 ± 1.49; p = 0.62); CCA (7.86 ± 4.39 vs. 7.13 ± 4.12; p = 0.57); MCD (8.24 ± 0.89 vs. 7.58 ± 1.14; p = 0.39); EES (5.43 ± 2.11 vs. 4.63 ± 2.30; p = 0.23). The composite mean score for the FTF-group was 6.85, and for the SIV-group was 6.20 (p < 0.05). There was no significant different in the level of confidence for both groups. CONCLUSION: SIV is as effective as FTF in teaching and learning basic emergency skills.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Self-instruction video (SIV) has been widely explored as a teaching mode for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillation (AED), but not with other basic emergency skills. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of SIV in teaching other basic emergency skill in comparison with traditional face-to-face (FTF) methods. METHODS:Participants were randomized into SIV and FTF groups. Each group was assigned to learn basic airway management (BAM), cervical collar application (CCA), manual cardiac defibrillation (MCD), and emergency extremity splinting (EES) skills. Confidence level was assessed using questionnaires, and skills performances were assessed using calibrated-blinded assessors through an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). RESULTS: Forty-five participants took part in the assessment exercises. There were no significant differences between both groups, on all four skill categories. The mean OSCE-score of an individual category between the FTF-group vs. the SIV-group were as follows: BAM (10.23 ± 1.04 vs. 10.04 ± 1.49; p = 0.62); CCA (7.86 ± 4.39 vs. 7.13 ± 4.12; p = 0.57); MCD (8.24 ± 0.89 vs. 7.58 ± 1.14; p = 0.39); EES (5.43 ± 2.11 vs. 4.63 ± 2.30; p = 0.23). The composite mean score for the FTF-group was 6.85, and for the SIV-group was 6.20 (p < 0.05). There was no significant different in the level of confidence for both groups. CONCLUSION:SIV is as effective as FTF in teaching and learning basic emergency skills.
Authors: Ismail M Saiboon; Reza M Qamruddin; Johar M Jaafar; Afliza A Bakar; Faizal A Hamzah; Ho S Eng; Colin E Robertson Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 1.484