Grace C Huang1, Jakob I McSparron2, Ethan M Balk3, Jeremy B Richards4, C Christopher Smith5, Julia S Whelan6, Lori R Newman7, Gerald W Smetana5. 1. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical, Center. 3. Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 5. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Optimal approaches to teaching bedside procedures are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify effective instructional approaches in procedural training. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library through December 2014. STUDY SELECTION: We included research articles that addressed procedural training among physicians or physician trainees for 12 bedside procedures. Two independent reviewers screened 9312 citations and identified 344 articles for full-text review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data from full-text articles. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We included measurements as classified by translational science outcomes T1 (testing settings), T2 (patient care practices) and T3 (patient/public health outcomes). Due to incomplete reporting, we post hoc classified study outcomes as 'negative' or 'positive' based on statistical significance. We performed meta-analyses of outcomes on the subset of studies sharing similar outcomes. RESULTS: We found 161 eligible studies (44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 34 non-RCTs and 83 uncontrolled trials). Simulation was the most frequently published educational mode (78%). Our post hoc classification showed that studies involving simulation, competency-based approaches and RCTs had higher frequencies of T2/T3 outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that simulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.54 vs 0.55 for studies with vs without simulation, p=0.013) and competency-based approaches (RR 3.17 vs 0.89, p<0.001) were effective forms of training. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review of bedside procedural skills demonstrates that the current literature is heterogeneous and of varying quality and rigour. Evidence is strongest for the use of simulation and competency-based paradigms in teaching procedures, and these approaches should be the mainstay of programmes that train physicians to perform procedures. Further research should clarify differences among instructional methods (eg, forms of hands-on training) rather than among educational modes (eg, lecture vs simulation). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
IMPORTANCE: Optimal approaches to teaching bedside procedures are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify effective instructional approaches in procedural training. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library through December 2014. STUDY SELECTION: We included research articles that addressed procedural training among physicians or physician trainees for 12 bedside procedures. Two independent reviewers screened 9312 citations and identified 344 articles for full-text review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data from full-text articles. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We included measurements as classified by translational science outcomes T1 (testing settings), T2 (patient care practices) and T3 (patient/public health outcomes). Due to incomplete reporting, we post hoc classified study outcomes as 'negative' or 'positive' based on statistical significance. We performed meta-analyses of outcomes on the subset of studies sharing similar outcomes. RESULTS: We found 161 eligible studies (44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 34 non-RCTs and 83 uncontrolled trials). Simulation was the most frequently published educational mode (78%). Our post hoc classification showed that studies involving simulation, competency-based approaches and RCTs had higher frequencies of T2/T3 outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that simulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.54 vs 0.55 for studies with vs without simulation, p=0.013) and competency-based approaches (RR 3.17 vs 0.89, p<0.001) were effective forms of training. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review of bedside procedural skills demonstrates that the current literature is heterogeneous and of varying quality and rigour. Evidence is strongest for the use of simulation and competency-based paradigms in teaching procedures, and these approaches should be the mainstay of programmes that train physicians to perform procedures. Further research should clarify differences among instructional methods (eg, forms of hands-on training) rather than among educational modes (eg, lecture vs simulation). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Robert Daniel Kay; Aditya Manoharan; Saman Nematollahi; Joseph Nelson; Stephen Henry Cummings; William Joaquin Adamas Rappaport; Richard Amini Journal: J Orthop Date: 2016-09-15
Authors: Michael J Chen; Aditee Ambardekar; Susan M Martinelli; Lauren K Buhl; Daniel P Walsh; Lior Levy; Cindy Ku; Lindsay A Rubenstein; Sara Neves; John D Mitchell Journal: J Educ Perioper Med Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Robert J Fortuna; Bethany Marston; Susan Messing; Gunnar Wagoner; Tiffany L Pulcino; Todd Bingemann; Enrico Caiola; Steven Scofield; Karen Nead; Brett W Robbins Journal: J Med Educ Curric Dev Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Marcia A Corvetto; Carlos Fuentes; Andrea Araneda; Pablo Achurra; Pablo Miranda; Paola Viviani; Fernando R Altermatt Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 2.217