| Literature DB >> 32664971 |
Amer Alshengeti1, Kathryn Slayter2,3,4, Emily Black5,6, Karina Top7,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop and validate a virtual patient (VP) learning module to educate pediatric residents about antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles. A VP module on complicated pneumonia was developed by experts in AMS and pediatric infectious diseases using the online platform DecisionSim™. Decision points were based on AMS principles (diagnosis, antimicrobial selection, dosing, de-escalation, route, duration). Pediatric residents in all training levels at a tertiary pediatric hospital were recruited to test the VP module. Knowledge was assessed via a multiple choice questionnaire. Mean knowledge scores were compared before, after, and 4 months after completing the module using Generalized Linear Mixed Repeated Measures (RM) Analysis. Resident satisfaction was assessed using a validated questionnaire.Entities:
Keywords: Antibiotics education; Antimicrobial resistance; Antimicrobial stewardship; Virtual patient
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32664971 PMCID: PMC7362648 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-05170-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Key Features of a Virtual Patient module to educate pediatric residents about principles Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices
| Branching design was used |
| The 6 main decision points were based on AMS principles: 1. optimizing diagnosis, 2. antimicrobial selection, 3. dosing, 4. de-escalation, 5. administration route, and 6. duration of treatment) |
| Different types of questions (triggers) were used as appropriate. E.g. free text for admission plan, MCQs for antibiotic selection |
| Media including pictures and videos were used to present clinical and microbiology data |
| Residents received feedback on each right or wrong decision |
| Antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were incorporated |
| Access to different national guidelines were provided at end of the module |
Generalized linear repeated measures analysis of the effect of the VP module on participants’ knowledge score across time (N = 27)
| Beta coefficient | Std. Err. | 95% C.I (Beta coefficient) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| (Intercept) | 71.66 | 3.06 | 65.33 | 77.99 | < 0.001 |
| Time 1 = pre-test | − 13.44 | 3.98 | 21.67 | 5.21 | 0.003 |
| Time 2 = 1st post-test | − 5.00 | 5.09 | 15.52 | 5.52 | 0.33 |
| Time 3 = 4 month post-test (reference comparison) | 0 | ||||
Residents’ Satisfaction Survey (N = 7)
| Question | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I felt I had to make the same decisions a doctor would make in real life | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (28.5%) | 5 (71.4%) |
| I felt I were the doctor caring for this patient | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (71.4%) | 2 (28.5%) |
| I was actively engaged in revising my initial image of the patient’s problem as new information became available | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| I was actively engaged in creating a short summary of the patient’s problem using medical terms | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (28.5%) | 3 (42.8%) | 2 (28.5%) |
| I was actively engaged in thinking about which findings supported or refuted each diagnosis in my differential diagnosis | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| The questions I was asked were helpful in enhancing my clinical reasoning (collecting, analyzing, interpreting information and making decisions) in this case | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| The feedback I received was helpful in enhancing my decision making in this module | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| After completing this case I feel better prepared to care for a real life patient to practice antimicrobial prescribing principles | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| Overall, working through this case was a worthwhile learning experience | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (42.8%) | 4 (57.1%) |