BACKGROUND:Simulation training is widely accepted as an effective teaching tool, especially for dealing with high-risk situations. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether standardized, simulation-based advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training improved performance in managing simulated and actual cardiac arrests. METHODS:A total of 103 second- and third-year internal medicine residents were randomized to 2 groups. The first group underwent conventional ACLS training. The second group underwent two 2 1/2-hour sessions of standardized simulation ACLS teaching. The groups were assessed by evaluators blinded to their assignment during in-hospital monthly mock codes and actual inpatient code sheets at 3 large academic hospitals. Primary outcomes were time to initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, time to administration of first epinephrine/vasopressin, time to delivery of first defibrillation, and adherence to American Heart Association guidelines. RESULTS: There were no differences in primary outcomes among the study arms and hospital sites. During 21 mock codes, the most common error was misidentification of the initial rhythm (67% [6 of 9] and 58% [7 of 12] control and simulation arms, respectively, P = .70). There were no differences in primary outcome among groups in 147 actual inpatient codes. CONCLUSIONS: This blinded, randomized study found no effect on primary outcomes. A notable finding was the percentage of internal medicine residents who misidentified cardiac arrest rhythms.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Simulation training is widely accepted as an effective teaching tool, especially for dealing with high-risk situations. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether standardized, simulation-based advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training improved performance in managing simulated and actual cardiac arrests. METHODS: A total of 103 second- and third-year internal medicine residents were randomized to 2 groups. The first group underwent conventional ACLS training. The second group underwent two 2 1/2-hour sessions of standardized simulation ACLS teaching. The groups were assessed by evaluators blinded to their assignment during in-hospital monthly mock codes and actual inpatient code sheets at 3 large academic hospitals. Primary outcomes were time to initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, time to administration of first epinephrine/vasopressin, time to delivery of first defibrillation, and adherence to American Heart Association guidelines. RESULTS: There were no differences in primary outcomes among the study arms and hospital sites. During 21 mock codes, the most common error was misidentification of the initial rhythm (67% [6 of 9] and 58% [7 of 12] control and simulation arms, respectively, P = .70). There were no differences in primary outcome among groups in 147 actual inpatient codes. CONCLUSIONS: This blinded, randomized study found no effect on primary outcomes. A notable finding was the percentage of internal medicine residents who misidentified cardiac arrest rhythms.
Authors: Jeffrey H Barsuk; William C McGaghie; Elaine R Cohen; Kevin J O'Leary; Diane B Wayne Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mary E Kiersma; Patricia L Darbishire; Kimberly S Plake; Christopher Oswald; Brenda M Walters Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Diane B Wayne; Aashish Didwania; Joe Feinglass; Monica J Fudala; Jeffrey H Barsuk; William C McGaghie Journal: Chest Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Amanda R Burden; Marc C Torjman; George E Dy; Jonathan D Jaffe; Jeffrey J Littman; Fiorella Nawar; S Sujanthy Rajaram; Christa Schorr; Gregory W Staman; Annette C Reboli Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Richard A Falcone; Margot Daugherty; Lynn Schweer; Mary Patterson; Rebeccah L Brown; Victor F Garcia Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.545
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