Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2019
Utilization of high-fidelity simulation for medical student and resident education of allergic-immunologic emergencies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mawhirt Stephanie L, Fonacier Luz, Aquino Marcella
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The advantages of clinical simulation used in medical education include the acquisition of clinical skills in a controlled setting, promoting a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, and a high degree of learner satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify knowledge gaps among Internal Medicine residents and students in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-induced angioedema through their participation in a simulation course.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving clinical simulations with a high-fidelity, patient-simulator. The cases (antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema) were standardized and algorithmic. Participants completed a pre- and post- simulation knowledge assessment and course evaluation. A follow-up knowledge survey was sent out 6 to 12 months after the course completion.
RESULTS: Twelve groups comprising 45 medical students and residents completed the anaphylaxis course. All groups diagnosed anaphylaxis after more than 2-organ-system involvement had manifested, and half of the groups made the diagnosis after the patient-simulator was in anaphylactic shock. Half gave an incorrect dose of epinephrine, and most of the participants were inexperienced in epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) administration. Eight groups comprising 27 participants completed the ACE-inhibitor-angioedema course. Six of the groups correctly diagnosed the patient-simulator, but multiple incorrect treatments were given, and only 1 group successfully intubated the patient-simulator. Knowledge improved immediately after the simulation, and knowledge specific to EAI treatment seemed to be retained long-term. All participants agreed that the simulation was practical to their education.
CONCLUSION: Clinical simulation improves knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. We advocate that clinical simulation be incorporated at institutions with appropriate capabilities.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify knowledge gaps among Internal Medicine residents and students in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-induced angioedema through their participation in a simulation course.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study involving clinical simulations with a high-fidelity, patient-simulator. The cases (antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema) were standardized and algorithmic. Participants completed a pre- and post- simulation knowledge assessment and course evaluation. A follow-up knowledge survey was sent out 6 to 12 months after the course completion.
RESULTS: Twelve groups comprising 45 medical students and residents completed the anaphylaxis course. All groups diagnosed anaphylaxis after more than 2-organ-system involvement had manifested, and half of the groups made the diagnosis after the patient-simulator was in anaphylactic shock. Half gave an incorrect dose of epinephrine, and most of the participants were inexperienced in epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) administration. Eight groups comprising 27 participants completed the ACE-inhibitor-angioedema course. Six of the groups correctly diagnosed the patient-simulator, but multiple incorrect treatments were given, and only 1 group successfully intubated the patient-simulator. Knowledge improved immediately after the simulation, and knowledge specific to EAI treatment seemed to be retained long-term. All participants agreed that the simulation was practical to their education.
CONCLUSION: Clinical simulation improves knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis and ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema. We advocate that clinical simulation be incorporated at institutions with appropriate capabilities.