Advances in Health Sciences Education

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 205–218 | Cite as

A randomized controlled study of manikin simulator fidelity on neonatal resuscitation program learning outcomes

  • Vernon Curran
  • Lisa Fleet
  • Susan White
  • Clare Bessell
  • Akhil Deshpandey
  • Anne Drover
  • Mark Hayward
  • James Valcour
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The neonatal resuscitation program (NRP) has been developed to educate physicians and other health care providers about newborn resuscitation and has been shown to improve neonatal resuscitation skills. Simulation-based training is recommended as an effective modality for instructing neonatal resuscitation and both low and high-fidelity manikin simulators are used. There is limited research that has compared the effect of low and high-fidelity manikin simulators for NRP learning outcomes, and more specifically on teamwork performance and confidence. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of using low versus high-fidelity manikin simulators in NRP instruction. A randomized posttest-only control group study design was conducted. Third year undergraduate medical students participated in NRP instruction and were assigned to an experimental group (high-fidelity manikin simulator) or control group (low-fidelity manikin simulator). Integrated skills station (megacode) performance, participant satisfaction, confidence and teamwork behaviour scores were compared between the study groups. Participants in the high-fidelity manikin simulator instructional group reported significantly higher total scores in overall satisfaction (p = 0.001) and confidence (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in teamwork behaviour scores, as observed by two independent raters, nor differences on mandatory integrated skills station performance items at the p < 0.05 level. Medical students’ reported greater satisfaction and confidence with high-fidelity manikin simulators, but did not demonstrate overall significantly improved teamwork or integrated skills station performance. Low and high-fidelity manikin simulators facilitate similar levels of objectively measured NRP outcomes for integrated skills station and teamwork performance.

Keywords

Resuscitation Neonatal Medical student Manikins Evaluation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

NRP training offered in conjunction with the study was only possible due to the collaborative efforts of: the Perinatal Program NL; Ms. Darlene Toope (neonatal educator); Ms. Diana Parsons (NRP instructor); Undergraduate Medical Education (UGME), Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University (Ms. Paula Mullins-Richards and Ms. Wandalee Cole); Medical Simulation Unit, Faculty of Medicine/Eastern Health (Ms. Joanne Hapgood and Ms. Sherry Pritchett-Kelly); Laerdal Canada (Mr. Scott Spearn, Vice-President and General Manager); and College of the North Atlantic, St. John’s, NL for providing an extra manikin and equipment.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011). Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation (NRP). Dallas, TX: American Heart Association.Google Scholar
  2. Beaubien, J. M., & Baker, D. P. (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in healthcare: How low can you go? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), i51–i56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley, P. (2006). The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Medical Education, 40, 254–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Durguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D., Barozzino, T., Farrugia, M., & Sgro, M. (2009). High-fidelity simulation in neonatal resuscitation. Paediatrics and Child Health, 14(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Pediatric Society. (2012). FAQs. Retrieved from: http://www.cps.ca/nrp-prn/faqs.
  7. Carbine, D., Finer, N., Knodel, E., & Rich, W. (2000). Video recording as a means of evaluating neonatal resuscitation performance. Pediatrics, 106(4), 654–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, D., & Hazinski, M. F. (2003). ILCOR advisory statement: Education in resuscitation. Resuscitation, 59, 11–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejus, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., et al. (2011). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 306, 978–988.Google Scholar
  10. Curran, V. R., Aziz, K., O’Young, S., & Bessell, C. (2004). Evaluation of the effect of a computerized training simulator (ANAKIN) on the retention of neonatal resuscitation skills. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(2), 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curran, V. R., & Fleet, L. (2012). An exploratory study of factors influencing resuscitation skills retention and performance amongst health providers. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32(2), 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, D., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. JAMA, 296(9), 1094–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davoudi, M., Wahidi, M. M., Zamanian, R. N., & Colt, H. G. (2010). Comparative effectiveness of low- and high-fidelity bronchoscopy simulation for training in conventional transbronchial needle aspiration and user preferences. Respiration, 80(4), 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn, S., Niday, P., Watters, N. E., McGrath, P., & Alcock, D. (1992). The provision and evaluation of a neonatal resuscitation program. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 23(3), 118–126.Google Scholar
  15. Ergenekon, E., Koç, E., Atalay, Y., & Soysal, O. (2000). Neonatal resuscitation course experience in Turkey. Resuscitation, 45(3), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(10), S46–S54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2004). Identifying and training non-technical skills for teams in acute medicine. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), i80–i84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankel, A., Gardner, R., Maynard, L., & Kelly, A. (2007). Using the communication and teamwork skills (CATS) assessment to measure health care team performance. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 33(9), 549–558.Google Scholar
  19. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Greiner, A. C., & Knebel, E. (2003). Health professions education: A bridge to quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  22. Halamek, L., Kaegi, D., Gaba, D., Sowb, Y., Smith, B., & Howard, S. (2000). Time for a new paradigm in pediatric medical education: Teaching neonatal resuscitation in a simulated delivery room environment. Pediatrics, 106(4), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoadley, T. (2009). Learning advanced cardiac life support: A comparison study of the effects of low- and high-fidelity simulation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 91–95.Google Scholar
  24. Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Gordon, D. L., & Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malec, J., Torsher, L., Dunn, W., Wiegmann, D. A., Arnold, J. J., Brown, D. A., et al. (2007). The mayo high performance teamwork scale: Reliability and validity for evaluating key crew resource management skills. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(1), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maran, N. J., & Glavin, R. J. (2003). Low- to high-fidelity simulation—a continuum of medical education? Medical Education, 37(Suppl. 1), 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy, A., & Halamek, L. (2005). Simulation-based training in neonatal resuscitation. NeoReviews, 6(11), e489–e492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, M., & Brown, C. G. (1984). CPR instruction: Modular versus lecture course. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 13(2), 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical Education, 46, 636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perkins, G. (2007). Simulation in resuscitation training. Resuscitation, 73, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodgers, D. L., Securro, S, Jr., & Pauley, R. D. (2009). The effect of high-fidelity simulation on educational outcomes in an advanced cardiovascular life support course. Simulation in Healthcare, 4(4), 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholz, C., Mann, C., Kopp, V., Kost, B., Kainer, F., & Fischer, M. R. (2012). High-fidelity simulation increases obstetric self-assurance and skills in undergraduate medical students. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 40(6), 607–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skidmore, M., & Urquhart, H. (2001). Retention of skills in neonatal resuscitation. Paediatrics and Child Health, 6(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
  34. Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education. Columbus, OH. (ERIC Digest No. 195; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED418250).Google Scholar
  35. Tan, S. C., Marlow, N., Field, J., & Altree, M. (2012). A randomized crossover trial examining low- versus high-fidelity simulation in basic laparoscopic skills training. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(11), 3207–3214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teteris, E., Fraser, K., Wright, B., & McLaughlin, K. (2012). Does training learners on simulators benefit real patients? Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Translating teamwork behaviours from aviation to healthcare: Development of behavioural markers for neonatal resuscitation. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), i57–i64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woolliscroft, J. O., Galhoun, J. G., Tenhaken, J. D., & Judge, R. D. (1987). Harvey: The impact of a cardiovascular teaching simulator on student skill acquisition. Medical Teacher, 9(1), 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yaeger, K., & Arafeh, J. (2008). Making the move from traditional neonatal education to simulation-based training. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, 22(2), 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vernon Curran
    • 5
  • Lisa Fleet
    • 1
  • Susan White
    • 2
  • Clare Bessell
    • 2
  • Akhil Deshpandey
    • 4
  • Anne Drover
    • 4
  • Mark Hayward
    • 1
  • James Valcour
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Perinatal ProgramEastern HealthSt. John’sCanada
  3. 3.Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of MedicineMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  4. 4.Discipline of Pediatrics, Faculty of MedicineMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  5. 5.Room # 2901, Centre for Collaborative Health Professional Education, Faculty of MedicineMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations