METHODS: A single-center prospective randomised controlled trial involving 30 doctors from Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 to compare the effectiveness of BL versus F2FL for emergency airway management training. Participants in the BL arm were given a period of 12 days to go through the online materials in a learning management system while those in the F2FL arm attended a-day of face-to-face lectures (8 h). Participants from both arms then attended a day of hands-on session consisting of simulation skills training with airway manikins. Pre- and post-tests in knowledge and practical skills were administered. E-learning experience and the perception towards BL among participants in the BL arm were also assessed.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in post-test scores as compared to pre-test scores were noted for participants in both BL and F2FL arms for knowledge, practical, and total scores. The degree of increment between the BL group and the F2FL arms for all categories were not significantly different (total scores: 35 marks, inter-quartile range (IQR) 15.0 - 41.0 vs. 31 marks, IQR 24.0 - 41.0, p = 0.690; theory scores: 18 marks, IQR 9 - 24 vs. 19 marks, IQR 15 - 20, p = 0.992; practical scores: 11 marks, IQR 5 -18 vs. 10 marks, IQR 9 - 20, p = 0.461 respectively). The overall perception towards BL was positive.
CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning is as effective as face-to-face learning for emergency airway management training of junior doctors, suggesting that blended learning may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face learning for such skill training in emergency departments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Malaysian National Medical Research NMRR-16-696-30190 . Registered 28 April 2016.
METHODS: Conducted from February to May 2023, this study aimed to determine the relationships between perceived effectiveness and perceived ease of implementation of six nudge interventions to reduce medication errors, i.e., provider champion, provider's commitment, peer comparison, provider education, patient education and departmental feedback, and the moderating effects of seniority of job positions and clinical experience on nudge acceptability. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling was used for data analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All six nudge strategies had significant positive relationships between perceived effectiveness and acceptability. In three out of six interventions, perceived ease of implementation was shown to have positive relationships with perceived acceptability. Only seniority of job position had a significant moderating effect on perceived ease of implementation in peer comparison intervention. Interventions that personally involve senior doctors appeared to have higher predictive accuracy than those that do not, indicating that high power-distance culture influence intervention acceptability.
CONCLUSION: For successful nudge implementations, both intrinsic properties of the interventions and the broader sociocultural context is necessary.
METHODS: In this single-center observational study, a validated questionnaire aimed to assess the university employees' attitude and confidence in handling AED and performing CPR before (pre-test) and immediately after (post-test) the training program was conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 184 participants participated in this study. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the training programs appeared to have improved the perception that "using AED is important for unresponsive victims" (z = 4.32, p
METHODS: Participants consisting of junior doctors were randomized into either the (1) gamified or the (2) conventional educational approach for ultrasonographic training.
RESULTS: A total of 31 junior doctors participated in this study (16 participants in gamified arm, 15 in the conventional arm after one participant from the conventional arm dropped out due to work commitment). Two-way mixed ANOVA test showed that there was no statistically significant interaction between the types of educational approach and time of testing (pre-test, post-test, 2 months post-training) for both theoretical knowledge score and practical skills score, with F(2, 58) = 39.6, p
RESULTS: Five factors with eigenvalue > 1 were identified. Pattern matrix analysis showed that all items were loaded into the factors with factor loading > 0.4. One item was subsequently removed as Cronbach's alpha > 0.9 which indicates redundancy. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated acceptable factor loadings except for one item which was subsequently removed. Internal consistency and discriminant validity was deemed acceptable with no significant cross-loading.
METHODS: Using the Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics' (MDA) framework, a new, tutorless educational board game known as the Simulated Disaster Management And Response Triage training ("SMARTriage") was first developed for disaster response training. Subsequently, the perceptions of 113 final year medical students on the "SMARTriage" board game was compared with that of tabletop exercise using a crossover design.
RESULTS: Using Wilcoxon signed rank test, it was that found that tabletop exercise was generally rated significantly higher (with p
METHODS: Using a validated questionnaire, 6248 participants were asked to rate their willingness to perform bystander chest compression with mouth-to-mouth ventilation and chest compression-only CPR. Their past familial experiences of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and medical help in various cardiac arrest and nonfatal cardiac events were also recorded.
RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn's pairwise comparisons showed that the following were significantly more willing to perform CPR with mouth-to-mouth ventilation: familial experience of "nonfatal cardiac events" (mean rank = 447) vs "out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no CPR" (mean rank = 177), U = 35442.5, z = -2.055, p = 0.04; "in-hospital cardiac arrest and successful CPR" (mean rank = 2955.79) vs "none of these experiences" (mean rank = 2468.38), U = 111903, z = -2.60, p = 0.01; and "in-hospital cardiac arrest with successful CPR" (mean rank = 133.45) vs "out-of-hospital arrest with no CPR" (mean rank = 112.36), U = 4135.5, z = -2.06, p = 0.04. For compression-only CPR, Kruskal-Wallis test with multiple runs of Mann-Whitney U tests showed that "nonfatal cardiac events" group was statistically higher than the group with "none of these experiences" (mean rank = 3061.43 vs 2859.91), U = 1194658, z = -2.588, p = 0.01. The groups of "in-hospital cardiac arrest with successful CPR" and "in-hospital cardiac arrest with transient return of spontaneous circulation" were the most willing groups to perform compression-only CPR.
CONCLUSION: Prior familial experiences of receiving CPR and medical help, particularly among those with successful outcomes in a hospital setting, seem to increase the willingness to perform bystander CPR.
METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.
RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.
CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.