Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High-fidelity simulation versus video-based learning in the management of pediatric septic shock: a pilot study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High-fidelity simulation (HFS) and video-based learning (VBL) promote competence in acute care in a realistic and safe environment. These two modalities have not been compared in pediatric emergency situations. Interns rotating in the pediatric department were randomized for the two educational methods. The delivered learning subject was septic shock in children. The level of knowledge was measured before intervention, immediately after intervention (post-test 1) and 1 week later (post-test 2). Knowledge test scores improved significantly following intervention in both VBL study group and HFS study group (71.5 ± 13.2 [39.0–88.0], p < 0.001 and 80.1 ± 10.3 [57.4–94.5], p < 0.001, respectively). The improvement was significantly higher in HFS study group (p = 0.04). There was a non-significant drop in the retention score evaluated by the post-test 2 in the two groups compared to the post-test 1 score (66.9 ± 15.4 [31.5–86.1], p = 0.17 and 78.8 ± 12.4 [56.0–100.0], p = 0.72 in the VBL and HFS study groups, respectively). The retention score was significantly higher in the HFS group (p = 0.04).

Conclusion: High-fidelity simulation and video-based training are both effective educational methods in teaching pediatric emergencies for interns. HFS appears to be superior in enhancing short-term retention.

What is Known:

• High-fidelity simulation is an effective educational tool to improve learners’ knowledge and skills.

• Video-based learning is an effective teaching tool in terms of short-term knowledge acquisition.

What is New:

• High-fidelity simulation is more effective in terms of short-term knowledge and generated more satisfaction than educational video learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data are available for review upon request.

Abbreviations

HFS:

High-fidelity simulation

MCQ:

Multiple-choice questions

VBL:

Video-based learning

References

  1. Boulet JR, Murray D, Kras J, Woodhouse J, McAllister J, Ziv A (2003) Reliability and validity of a simulation-based acute care skills assessment for medical students and residents. Anesthesiology 99(6):1270–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Langhan TS, Rigby IJ, Walker IW, Howes D, Donnon T, Lord JA (2009) Simulation-based training in critical resuscitation procedures improves residents’ competence. Can J Emerg Med 11(6):535–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shearer JE (2013) High-fidelity simulation and safety: an integrative review. J Nurs Educ 52(1):39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fraser K, Peets A, Walker I, Tworek J, Paget M, Wright B, McLaughlin K (2009) The effect of simulator training on clinical skills acquisition, retention and transfer. Med Educ 43(8):784–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Issenberg SB, Scalese RJ (2008) Simulation in health care education. Perspect Biol Med 51(1):31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shephard KL (2001) Submission of student assignments on compact discs: exploring the use of audio, images, and video in assessment and student learning. Br J Educ Technol 32(2):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gazio J, Buckley KM (2009) An untapped resource. Using YouTube in nursing education. Nurse Educ 34(1):23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laurillard D (1995) Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. Br J Educ Technol 26(3):179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barford J, Weston C (1997) The use of video as a teaching resource. J Educ Technol 28(1):40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baharav E (2008) Student’ use of video clip technology in clinical education. Top Lang Disord 28(3):286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A (2005) International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med 6(1):2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Delasobera BE, Goodwin TL, Strehlow M, Gilbert G, D'Souza P, Alok A, Raje P, Mahadevan SV (2010) Evaluating the efficacy of simulators and multimedia for refreshing ACLS skills in India. Resuscitation 81(2):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sakamoto Y, Okamoto S, Shimizu K, Araki Y, Hirakawa A, Wakabayashi (2017) Hands-on simulation versus traditional video-learning in teaching microsurgery technique. Neurol Med Chir 57(5):238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morgan PJ, Cleave-Hogg D, McIlroy J, Devitt JH (2002) Simulation technology: a comparison of experiential and visual learning for undergraduate medical students. Anesthesiology 96(1):10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nyssen AS, Larbuisson R, Janssens M, Pendeville P, Mayné A (2002) A comparison of the training value of two types of anesthesia simulators: computer screen-based and mannequin-based simulators. Anesth Analg 94(6):1560–1565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lorello GR, Cook DA, Johnson RL, Brydges R (2014) Simulation-based training in anaesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth 112(2):231–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Adams AJ, Wasson EA, Admire JR, Pablo Gomez P, Babayeuski RA, Sako EY, Willis RE (2015) A comparison of teaching modalities and Fidelity of simulation levels in teaching resuscitation scenarios. J Surg Educ 72(5):778–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R (2012) Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc 7(5):308–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vattanavanit V, Kawla-Ied J, Bhurayanontachai R (2016) High-fidelity medical simulation training improves medical students’ knowledge and confidence levels in septic shock resuscitation. Open Access Emerg Med 9:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maibach EW, Schieber RA, Carroll MFB (1996) Self-efficacy in pediatric resuscitation: implications for education and performance. Pediatrics 97(1):94–99

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zigmont JJ, Kappus LJ, Sudikoff SN (2011) Theoretical foundations of learning through simulation. SeminPerinatol 35(2):47–51

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Adel Rdissi for the English editing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Monastir, Tunisia

    Habib Besbes, Farah Thabet, Emna Sfar, Chokri Chouchane & Slaheddine Chouchane

  2. Department of Intensive Care, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Monastir, Tunisia

    Islam Ouanes

Authors
  1. Habib Besbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Islam Ouanes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Farah Thabet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emna Sfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chokri Chouchane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Slaheddine Chouchane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HB is the main author of the manuscript, he drafted the study design, and he analyzed the results; IO made substantial contributions to the conception of the study and he revised it critically; FT is the corresponding author, she participated in the interpretation of the data, and she drafted the paper; ES participated in the data acquisition and she drafted the work; CC made substantial contribution to the data interpretation and he revised critically the work; SC analyzed the work and revised it critically. All authors approved the version to be published and all agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farah Thabet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. The study was approved by the local ethical committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

All authors gave their consent for publication.

Additional information

Communicated by Daniele De Luca

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Besbes, H., Ouanes, I., Thabet, F. et al. High-fidelity simulation versus video-based learning in the management of pediatric septic shock: a pilot study. Eur J Pediatr 180, 487–493 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-020-03856-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-020-03856-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation