Cureus · 2024
Pedagogical Implementation of Directive Feedback Manikins on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Competencies: Expert Versus Peer Coaching.
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.
Pellegrino Jeffrey L, Back Anna, Chan Ada, Muise Joanna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Directive feedback manikins in resuscitation training evolved faster than the pedagogical evidence. Educators and learning systems must seek clarification on the efficacy of this technology to have evidence-based practices. This project explores directive feedback device use in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education for laypersons.
METHODS: A prospective nonrandomized-controlled design assessed two pedagogical approaches of directive feedback manikins in adult CPR lessons. The 230 participants were distributed between three groups: a control group without directive feedback manikins (no lights, NL), an expert coaching (EC) group with directive feedback and educator interpretation, and a peer coaching (PC) group with directive feedback, peer interpretation, and expert quality assurance.
RESULTS: From the 25 courses observed, average compression depth (mm) did not differ between groups (p = .498), average compression rate (compressions: minute) significantly differed between groups (p = .004), and correct hand placement did not differ between groups (p = .249). A chi-square test showed no significant association between groups and CPR skill feedback, or between groups and "recommending the course to a friend or family member." The PC group was more likely to agree that they could "coach someone to do CPR skills" than the NL or EC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study expands the knowledge base of directive feedback manikins in a pedagogical setting to improve CPR competencies. Training organizations may consider any of these practices effective, choosing those that align with desired outcomes. CPR educators need orientation to feedback devices as well as professional development on educational options for their use. Considerations for further research include technology costs, access, and cultural aspects of implementing these tools.
METHODS: A prospective nonrandomized-controlled design assessed two pedagogical approaches of directive feedback manikins in adult CPR lessons. The 230 participants were distributed between three groups: a control group without directive feedback manikins (no lights, NL), an expert coaching (EC) group with directive feedback and educator interpretation, and a peer coaching (PC) group with directive feedback, peer interpretation, and expert quality assurance.
RESULTS: From the 25 courses observed, average compression depth (mm) did not differ between groups (p = .498), average compression rate (compressions: minute) significantly differed between groups (p = .004), and correct hand placement did not differ between groups (p = .249). A chi-square test showed no significant association between groups and CPR skill feedback, or between groups and "recommending the course to a friend or family member." The PC group was more likely to agree that they could "coach someone to do CPR skills" than the NL or EC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study expands the knowledge base of directive feedback manikins in a pedagogical setting to improve CPR competencies. Training organizations may consider any of these practices effective, choosing those that align with desired outcomes. CPR educators need orientation to feedback devices as well as professional development on educational options for their use. Considerations for further research include technology costs, access, and cultural aspects of implementing these tools.