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
BACKGROUND: Early identification of delirium in intensive care units is crucial for patient care. Hence, nurses require adequate knowledge to enable appropriate evaluation of delirium using standardised practice and assessment tools.
DESIGN: This study, performed in Malaysia, used a single-group pretest-posttest study design to assess the effect of educational interventions and hands-on practices on nurses' knowledge of intensive care unit delirium and delirium assessment.
METHODS: Sixty-one nurses participated in educational intervention sessions, including classroom learning, demonstrations and hands-on practices on the Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires for the pre- and postintervention assessments. Analysis to determine the effect of the educational intervention consisted of the repeated-measures analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: There were significant differences in the knowledge scores pre- and postintervention, after controlling for demographic characteristics. The two most common perceived barriers to the adoption of the intensive care unit delirium assessment tool were "physicians did not use nurses' delirium assessment in decision-making" and "difficult to interpret delirium in intubated patients".
CONCLUSIONS: Educational intervention and hands-on practices increased nurses' knowledge of delirium assessment. Teaching and interprofessional involvements are essential for a successful implementation of intensive care unit delirium assessment practice.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study supports existing evidences, indicating that education and training could increase nurses' knowledge of delirium and delirium assessment. Improving nurses' knowledge could potentially lead to better delirium management practice and improve ICU patient care. Thus, continuous efforts to improve and sustain nurses' knowledge become relevant in ICU settings.
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
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.