Abstract
Background
Simulation is increasingly utilized in the clinical training of healthcare professionals. Many perfusion programs in the United States use simulation to teach students both technical skills and effective communication. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding the optimal timing for introducing simulation into the curriculum and how to assess students’ competencies. This study aims to evaluate whether combining simulation with didactic education is more effective than didactic education alone for learning perfusion-specific tasks, such as oxygenator changeouts.
Methods
This was a pilot, randomized controlled study conducted during November 2020. Subjects who were in their first year and enrolled in a cardiovascular perfusion program at the university were included. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive didactic education alone (control) or didactic in combination with the simulation training (experimental). Both groups received the didactic portion of the oxygenator change out procedure and the experimental group received supplemental simulation training. The primary outcome was oxygenator change-out completion time (recorded in minutes and seconds) to identify and change-out an oxygenator in a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. The secondary outcome was total communication score and subject’s overall performance assessment using the scoring system referenced by Burkhart et al.
Results
The experimental group (
Conclusion
The study findings revealed that the group receiving both didactic instruction and simulation performed an oxygenator change-out significantly faster than the group that received only didactic instruction. These results suggest that incorporating simulation of emergency scenarios into perfusion training can enhance students’ speed in performing complex tasks, better preparing them for real clinical situations.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.