| Literature DB >> 35409597 |
María Gracia Adánez-Martínez1, Ismael Jiménez-Ruiz2, César Carrillo-García2,3, José Luis Díaz-Agea4, Antonio Jesús Ramos-Morcillo2, Alonso Molina-Rodríguez2, María Ruzafa-Martínez2, César Leal-Costa2.
Abstract
(1) The COVID-19 pandemic has had many consequences on health systems worldwide. In the Spanish health system, telephone-based consultations were coupled to in-person consultations. This type of consultation was mainly a challenge for the primary care teams, who had to assume the greatest load of care provision. The objective of the present study was to discover the satisfaction and perception of health professionals related to a training program on efficient communication based on high-fidelity simulation. (2)Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; clinical simulation; communication training; primary care; telephone communication
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409597 PMCID: PMC8997775 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19073915
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Voiced-over videos.
| Module 1 | Basic aspects of COVID-19 |
| Module 2 | Basic aspects of monitoring of COVID-19 patients and their contacts |
| Module 3 | Steps to take for identifying cases and investigate their contacts |
| Module 4 | Ethical/legal aspects in the management of COVID-19 patients |
| Module 5 | Skills needed to achieve effective communication |
Teaching/problem videos of clinical cases of monitoring and follow-up of COVID-19 patients.
| Video Title | Summary | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical interview on COVID-19 | Clinical telephone-based interview of COVID-19 patient. |
Apply the CERCAR protocol. Learn effective communication tools. |
| The telephone bring us closer | Clinical interview of a COVID-19 patient with social problems. |
Apply the CERCAR protocol. Resolution of situations with a social problem. Use of community resources. |
| Go home | Clinical interview of a patient who is possibly not complying with confinement. |
Apply the CERCAR protocol. Resolution of problems with difficult patients. Efficient communication skills. |
Figure 1Teaching/problem videos of clinical cases with COVID-19 patients.
Clinical cases.
| Scenario | Learning Objectives |
|---|---|
| You call Maria, her six-year old son Abel is waiting for PCR results due to a close contact at school, his PCR is positive |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions, isolation |
| You call Mario, 43 years old. You inform him that his PCR test is positive. |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions. Confidentiality. |
| You call Javier, 18 years old. Works in a private residential home, had a PCR test 24 h ago and is positive. |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Isolation COVID protocol for health workers |
| You call Yesica, 20 years old. PCR positive. The test was done 24 h ago. |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Confidentiality |
| You call Manuel, 36 years old, positive PCR. Test done 48 h ago. Negationist. |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Negationism |
| You call Habib. Positive PCR. Does not understand the language. You hear lots of coughing. Important communication barrier. A 10 year-old girl gets the phone. |
Apply the CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Language barrier |
| You call Antonia, 82 years old. Follow-up call due to positive PCR test, it’s the third day you call. |
CERCAR© protocol Severe worsening of general health Making of decisions |
| You call Ruben for a follow-up. 20 years old. Positive PCR 10 days ago, asymptomatic on yesterday’s call. |
CERCAR© protocol Re-enforce isolation in the last few days. |
| You call Tomas, 50 years old, for a follow-up. Positive PCR 4 days ago. |
CERCAR© protocol Mild worsening of general health Making of decisions and COVID-19 protocol |
| You call Eugenia, 50 years old. Very symptomatic. Negative PCR. |
CERCAR© protocol High clinical suspicion with negative PCR. High-anxiety situation |
| You call Pedro, 18 years old, because he was a close contact. Positive PCR yesterday. |
CERCAR© protocol Breach of quarantine |
| You call Felipe, 56 years old. Mild symptoms. He is homeless and lives on the street. |
CERCAR© protocol Social problem Social health resources available |
| You call Julia, 22 years old. Does not answer the calls. |
CERCAR© protocol Resources and action protocol against breach of quarantine/no answer |
| You call Ana, in quarantine due to close contact 10 days ago. She was just deemed positive. |
CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Efficient communication skills |
| You call Carmen to inform her she is PCR positive. She just came back from her father’s funeral, who died due to COVID-19. |
CERCAR© protocol Making of decisions Efficient communication skills |
| You call Ruben, nursing student. He is positive. He already knows it because his girlfriend, a nurse, has just informed him. |
CERCAR© protocol Ethical-legal problems, confidentiality Efficient communication skills |
| You call Abel, 85 years old. His daughter answers the phone. She informs you that he has just passed away. |
CERCAR© protocol Efficient communication skills Action protocol of patients who have passed away |
| You call Mario, 43 years old, he was just discharged from the hospital. He was admited due to pneumonia due to COVID-19. |
CERCAR© protocol Efficient communication skills Monitoring and follow-up protocol |
| You call Javier, 23 years old. He has received two doses of the vaccine. He is positive due to close contact. |
CERCAR© protocol Efficient communication skills Follow-up protocol |
| You call Monica, caregiver to the elderly in a residential home, she is a close contact. She resists vaccination. |
CERCAR© protocol Efficient communication skills Monitoring and follow-up protocol |
Participants’ characteristics.
| Total | Groups |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physician | Nurse | |||
| Age M (SD) | 31.2 (9.9) | 29.6 (8.2) | 33.3 (11.5) | 0.003 a |
|
Gender | ||||
| Women | 205 (74.5) | 110 (70.5) | 95 (79.8) | 0.08 b |
| Men | 70 (25.5) | 46 (29.5) | 24 (20.2) | |
|
Marital status | ||||
| Single | 202 (73.5) | 125 (80.1) | 77 (64.7) | 0.004 b |
| Married | 69 (25.1) | 28 (17.9) | 41 (34.5) | |
| Divorced | 3 (1.1) | 3 (2.0) | 0 (0) | |
| Widower | 1 (0.4) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.8) | |
|
Resident in training | ||||
| Yes | 214 (77.8) | 141 (90.4) | 73 (61.3) | 0.000 b |
| No | 61 (22.2) | 15 (9.6) | 46 (38.7) | |
| Professional experience months M (SD) | 62.5 (241.1) | 26.1 (73.1) | 110.2 (352.1) | 0.012 a |
Note: a = t for continuous quantitative values, and b = X for qualitative variables; M= mean; SD= standard deviation.
Descriptive analysis for items of the clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire.
| Items | Total | Groups |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physician | Nurse | |||
|
Facilities and equipment were real | 4.64 (0.58) | 4.62 (0.62) | 4.68 (0.52) | 0.35 |
|
Objectives were clear in the cases | 4.73 (0.56) | 4.72 (0.56) | 4.75 (0.56) | 0.73 |
|
Cases recreated real situations | 4.72 (0.55) | 4.71 (0.59) | 4.74 (0.49) | 0.68 |
|
Timing for each simulation case was adequate | 4.53 (0.68) | 4.50 (0.70) | 4.56 (0.65) | 0.45 |
|
The degree of difficulty of the cases was appropriate for my amount of knowledge | 4.45 (0.63) | 4.46 (0.60) | 4.45 (0.66) | 0.90 |
|
I felt comfortable and respected during the sessions | 4.77 (0.53) | 4.79 (0.51) | 4.74 (0.56) | 0.45 |
|
Clinical simulation is useful for assessing a patient’s clinical simulation | 4.68 (0.55) | 4.66 (0.57) | 4.71 (0.53) | 0.50 |
|
Simulation practices help you learn to avoid mistakes | 4.53 (0.64) | 4.53 (0.64) | 4.53 (0.65) | 0.97 |
|
Simulation has helped me to set priorities for action | 4.67 (0.55) | 4.65 (0.57) | 4.71 (0.53) | 0.38 |
|
Simulation has improved my ability to provide care to my patient | 4.67 (0.58) | 4.67 (0.57) | 4.66 (0.58) | 0.97 |
|
Simulation has made me think about my next clinical practice | 4.69 (0.56) | 4.69 (0.56) | 4.70 (0.56) | 0.94 |
|
Simulation improves communication and teamwork | 4.63 (0.60) | 4.62 (0.61) | 4.65 (0.59) | 0.73 |
|
Simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice | 4.52 (0.69) | 4.53 (0.70) | 4.51 (0.67) | 0.82 |
|
Simulation is beneficial for relating theory to practice | 4.71 (0.55) | 4.71 (0.56) | 4.70 (0.54) | 0.83 |
|
Simulation allows us to plan the patient’s care effectively | 4.59 (0.59) | 4.57 (0.61) | 4.62 (0.55) | 0.47 |
|
I have improved my technical skills | 4.58 (0.64) | 4.55 (0.65) | 4.62 (0.61) | 0.36 |
|
I have reinforced my critical thinking and decision-making skills | 4.63 (0.60) | 4.60 (0.61) | 4.66 (0.58) | 0.40 |
|
Simulation helped me assess a patient’s condition | 4.56 (0.59) | 4.52 (0.59) | 4.61 (0.58) | 0.19 |
|
This experience has helped me prioritize care | 4.61 (0.57) | 4.57 (0.59) | 4.66 (0.54) | 0.22 |
|
Simulation promotes self-confidence | 4.64 (0.58) | 4.61 (0.61) | 4.67 (0.55) | 0.37 |
|
I have improved communication with the team | 4.56 (0.64) | 4.57 (0.62) | 4.55 (0.66) | 0.84 |
|
I have improved communication with the family | 4.52 (0.69) | 4.50 (0.70) | 4.55 (0.66) | 0.58 |
|
I have improved communication with the patient | 4.72 (0.53) | 4.71 (0.54) | 4.73 (0.52) | 0.76 |
|
This type of practice has increased my assertiveness | 4.63 (0.60) | 4.60 (0.64) | 4.68 (0.55) | 0.25 |
|
I lost my temper in some of the cases | 4.35 (0.62) | 4.38 (0.58) | 4.31 (0.67) | 0.38 |
|
Interaction with simulation has improved my clinical competence | 4.61 (0.56) | 4.61 (0.56) | 4.61 (0.57) | 0.95 |
|
The teacher provided constructive feedback after each session | 4.77 (0.50) | 4.76 (0.51) | 4.78 (0.49) | 0.68 |
|
Debriefing has helped me reflect on the cases | 4.75 (0.52) | 4.78 (0.50) | 4.71 (0.54) | 0.33 |
|
Debriefing at the end of the session has helped me correct mistakes | 4.76 (0.51) | 4.77 (0.51) | 4.74 (0.51) | 0.63 |
|
I knew the cases’ theoretical side | 4.45 (0.63) | 4.47 (0.63) | 4.43 (0.63) | 0.61 |
|
I have learned from the mistakes I made during the simulation | 4.71 (0.53) | 4.70 (0.54) | 4.73 (0.53) | 0.62 |
|
Practical utility | 4.73 (0.52) | 4.71 (0.53) | 4.76 (0.50) | 0.48 |
|
Overall satisfaction with the sessions | 4.65 (0.57) | 4.63 (0.59) | 4.67 (0.55) | 0.59 |
Figure 2Response percentages for items of the clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire.
Descriptive statistics of the questions about consolidation of learning, the applicability to the position at work, and the need for additional training.
| Items | Total | Groups |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physician | Nurse | |||
| Consolidation of the learning | ||||
| 1. The training has improved your theoretical-practical knowledge in relation to COVID-19. | 4.44 (0.66) | 4.47 0.67 | 4.38 (0.65) | 0.45 |
| 2. It has implied an improvement in your technical competences. | 4.36 (0.66) | 4.40 (0.63) | 4.29 (0.71) | 0.33 |
| 3. The training has implied an improvement in your communication skills and the achievement of efficient communication. | 4.37 (0.65) | 4.41 (0.67) | 4.29 (0.63) | 0.27 |
| Applicability to the position at work | ||||
| 4. You have had the opportunity to apply the knowlede acquired related with COVID-19 at work. | 4.33 (0.72) | 4.41 (0.71) | 4.20 (0.73) | 0.08 |
| 5. The training has helped you in the making of decisions related to COVID-19 in your position at work | 4.32 (0.71) | 4.41 (0.67) | 4.16 (0.76) | 0.04 |
| 6. I’ve had the opportunity at work to participate in the telephone-based monitoring of COVID-19 cases | 4.38 (0.73) | 4.50 (0.62) | 4.17 (0.84) | 0.01 |
| 7. You have used the CERCAR© COVID-19 protocol in the monitoring of cases and close contacts. | 4.25 (0.65) | 4.33 (0.65) | 4.13 (0.64) | 0.07 |
| Benefit for the organization | ||||
| 8. Do you believe the training has been beneficial to the Organization? | 4.48 (0.61) | 4.51 (0.60) | 4.42 (0.63) | 0.38 |
Verbatim text of the categories identified after the thematic analysis of the participant’s comments.
| Category | Verbatim |
|---|---|
| Satisfaction with the experience based on clinical simulation | “I loved the course, it was very useful. The professors promoted interaction, dynamics, and trust!”(N40) |
| Transfer to clinical practice and the use of the structured communication protocol CER-CAR© COVID-19 | “The CERCAR protocol allowed me to not forget any key questions for my patients” (D40) |
| Learning in a psychologically safe environment | “It is a novel methodology taught by excellent professionals, who have made learning easy“ (N131) |
| Fidelity of the simulation | “Excellent course; with simulations that were very similar to real life, which greatly help the putting into practice of what I had learned” (D235) |
| Benefits of reflection and debriefing | “…its practial nature and the debriefing helped analyze our mistakes and those of others to improve and learn…” (D155) |