C J Thorne1, A S Lockey2, I Bullock3, S Hampshire4, S Begum-Ali4, G D Perkins5. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK; Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK. Electronic address: cj.thorne@doctors.org.uk. 2. Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK; Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Halifax HX3 0PW, UK. 3. Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK; Royal College of Physicians, London NW1 4LE, UK. 4. Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK. 5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK; Resuscitation Council (UK), Tavistock House North, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HR, UK; University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Warwick CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To descriptively analyse the outcomes following the national roll out of an e-Learning advanced life support course (e-ALS) compared to a conventional 2-day ALS course (c-ALS). METHOD: Between 1st January 2013 and 30th June 2014, 27,170 candidates attended one of the 1350 Resuscitation Council (UK) ALS courses across the UK. 18,952 candidates were enrolled on a c-ALS course and 8218 on an e-ALS course. Candidates participating in the e-ALS course completed 6-8h of online e-Learning prior to attending the 1 day modified face-to-face course. Candidates participating in the c-ALS course undertook the Resuscitation Council (UK) 2-day face-to-face course. All candidates were assessed by a pre- and post-course MCQ and a practical cardiac arrest simulation (CAS-test). Demographic data were collected in addition to assessment outcomes. RESULTS: Candidates on the e-ALS course had higher scores on the pre-course MCQ (83.7%, SD 7.3) compared to those on the c-ALS course (81.3%, SD 8.2, P<0.001). Similarly, they had slightly higher scores on the post-course MCQ (e-ALS 87.9%, SD 6.4 vs. c-ALS 87.4%, SD 6.5; P<0.001). The first attempt CAS-test pass rate on the e-ALS course was higher than the pass rate on the c-ALS course (84.6% vs. 83.6%; P=0.035). The overall pass rate was 96.6% on both the e-ALS and c-ALS courses (P=0.776). CONCLUSION: The e-ALS course demonstrates equivalence to traditional face-to-face learning in equipping candidates with ALS skills when compared to the c-ALS course. Value is added when considering benefits such as increased candidate autonomy, cost-effectiveness, decreased instructor burden and improved standardisation of course material. Further dissemination of the e-ALS course should be encouraged.
AIM: To descriptively analyse the outcomes following the national roll out of an e-Learning advanced life support course (e-ALS) compared to a conventional 2-day ALS course (c-ALS). METHOD: Between 1st January 2013 and 30th June 2014, 27,170 candidates attended one of the 1350 Resuscitation Council (UK) ALS courses across the UK. 18,952 candidates were enrolled on a c-ALS course and 8218 on an e-ALS course. Candidates participating in the e-ALS course completed 6-8h of online e-Learning prior to attending the 1 day modified face-to-face course. Candidates participating in the c-ALS course undertook the Resuscitation Council (UK) 2-day face-to-face course. All candidates were assessed by a pre- and post-course MCQ and a practical cardiac arrest simulation (CAS-test). Demographic data were collected in addition to assessment outcomes. RESULTS: Candidates on the e-ALS course had higher scores on the pre-course MCQ (83.7%, SD 7.3) compared to those on the c-ALS course (81.3%, SD 8.2, P<0.001). Similarly, they had slightly higher scores on the post-course MCQ (e-ALS 87.9%, SD 6.4 vs. c-ALS 87.4%, SD 6.5; P<0.001). The first attempt CAS-test pass rate on the e-ALS course was higher than the pass rate on the c-ALS course (84.6% vs. 83.6%; P=0.035). The overall pass rate was 96.6% on both the e-ALS and c-ALS courses (P=0.776). CONCLUSION: The e-ALS course demonstrates equivalence to traditional face-to-face learning in equipping candidates with ALS skills when compared to the c-ALS course. Value is added when considering benefits such as increased candidate autonomy, cost-effectiveness, decreased instructor burden and improved standardisation of course material. Further dissemination of the e-ALS course should be encouraged.
Authors: Helene Bylow; Thomas Karlsson; Margret Lepp; Andreas Claesson; Jonny Lindqvist; Leif Svensson; Johan Herlitz Journal: Med Sci Educ Date: 2020-11-18
Authors: David P de Sena; Daniela D Fabrício; Vinícius D da Silva; Luiz Carlos Bodanese; Alexandre R Franco Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: María Del Mar Requena-Mullor; Raquel Alarcón-Rodríguez; María Isabel Ventura-Miranda; Jessica García-González Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Robert Greif; Andrew Lockey; Jan Breckwoldt; Francesc Carmona; Patricia Conaghan; Artem Kuzovlev; Lucas Pflanzl-Knizacek; Ferenc Sari; Salma Shammet; Andrea Scapigliati; Nigel Turner; Joyce Yeung; Koenraad G Monsieurs Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Lucia Tobase; Heloisa H C Peres; Renan Gianotto-Oliveira; Nicole Smith; Thatiane F Polastri; Sergio Timerman Journal: Int J Med Educ Date: 2017-08-25
Authors: Juan Chaves; Antonio A Lorca-Marín; Emilio José Delgado-Algarra Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.390