METHODS: A single-blinded randomised hospital-based trial was undertaken involving 540 nurses assigned to two intervention groups and a waitlist group. Intervention group-1 received a face-to-face training course comprising 20 h spread over six weeks and a hard copy of the module, while intervention group-2 only received the hard copy of the module "without training". In contrast, the waitlist group did not receive anything during the period of collecting data. A self-administered NI control measures-evaluation questionnaire was utilised in collecting the data from the participants; before the intervention, at six weeks and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The period of data collection was between 1st May and 30th October 2016.
RESULTS: The results from collecting and analysing the data showed a statistically significant difference in the mean knowledge scores between the intervention groups that were detectable immediately post-intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 4.31 (P
METHODS: Three areas of priority were identified as follows: staff safety, patient movement, and possible clinical scenarios based on simulation principles in health care education. Staff was rostered and rotated through stations for rapid-cycle deliberate practice to learn donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR). For difficult airway management, Peyton's 4 steps for skills training and Harden's Three Circle model formed the structure in teaching the core skills. Several clinical scenarios used system probing to elicit inadequacies followed by formal debriefing to facilitate reflection. Finally, evaluation was both immediate and delayed with an online survey after 1 month to examine 4 levels of reaction, learning, behavior, and impact based on the Kirkpatrick Model. Frequency and thematic analysis were then conducted on the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 15 of 16 (93%) consultants, 16 (100%) specialists, and 81 (100%) medical officers in the department completed training within 2 consecutive weeks. Reaction and part of the learning were relayed immediately to trainers during training. In total, 42 (39%) trained staff responded to the survey. All were satisfied and agreed on the relevance of training. A total of 41 respondents (98%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99) answered 16 of 20 questions correctly on identifying aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), indications for PPE, planning and preparation for airway management to achieve adequate learning. About 43% (95% CI, 27-59) and 52% (95% CI, 36-68) recalled donning and doffing steps correctly. A total of 92 responses from 33 respondents were analyzed in the thematic analysis. All respondents reported at least 1 behavioral change in intended outcomes for hand hygiene practice (20%), appropriate use of PPE (27%), and airway management (10%). The emerging outcomes were vigilance, physical distancing, planning, and team communication. Finally, the impact of training led to the establishment of institutional guidelines followed by all personnel.
CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based training was a useful preparation tool for small institutions with limited time, resources, and manpower in developing nations. These recommendations represent the training experience to address issues of "when" and "how" to initiate urgent "medical education" during an outbreak.
DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study consisting of a single group before-and-after study design.
SETTING: A public emergency hospital in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: 660 (preintervention) and then 498 (postintervention) handwritten physician orders, medication administration records (MRAs) and pharmacy dispensing sheets of 482 and 388 patients, respectively, from emergency wards, inpatient settings and the pharmacy department were reviewed.
INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a series of interactive lectures delivered by an experienced clinical pharmacist to all hospital staff members and dissemination of educational tools (flash cards, printed list of HRAs, awareness posters) designed in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Safe Medical Practices and the US Food and Drug Administration. The duration of intervention was from April to May 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction in the incidence of HRAs use from the preintervention to postintervention study period.
FINDINGS: The five most common abbreviations recorded prior to the interventions were 'IJ for injection' (28.6%), 'SC for subcutaneous' (17.4%), drug name and dose running together (9.7%), 'OD for once daily' (5.8%) and 'D/C for discharge' (4.3%). The incidence of the use of HRAs was highest in discharge prescriptions and dispensing records (72.7%) followed by prescriptions from in-patient wards (47.3%). After the intervention, the overall incidence of HRA was significantly reduced by 52% (ie, 53.6% vs 25.5%; p=0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of HRAs across all three settings: the pharmacy department (72.7% vs 39.3%), inpatient settings (47.3% vs 23.3%) and emergency wards (40.9% vs 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led educational interventions can significantly reduce the use of HRAs by healthcare providers. Future research should investigate the long-term effectiveness of such educational interventions through a randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: Bone procurement workshop was held for 2 days for doctors and paramedics. The knowledge on bone procurement was evaluated in pre- and post-assessments by answering self administration questionnaire before and after the workshop, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 50 participants comprised of doctors and paramedics attended the workshop however only 15 (55.6%) doctors and 12 (44.4%) paramedics completed the assessments. Overall, the mean total score for the post-assessment (61.4%) was significantly higher (p