Impact of blended learning on manual defibrillator's use: A simulation‐based randomized trial. Issue 4 (13th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Siebert, Johan N.; Glangetas, Alban; Grange, Marine; Haddad, Kevin; Courvoisier, Delphine S.; Lacroix, Laurence
• Is Part Of: Nursing in critical care. Volume 27:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 501
• Page End: 511
• Publication Date: 2021-09-13
• Subjects: blended learning -- defibrillator -- education -- educational technology -- emergency medicine -- nursing -- paediatrics; Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7361
• DOI: 10.1111/nicc.12713
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1362-1017

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Blended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face‐to‐face instructor‐led learning and e‐learning course, has never been validated as a teaching method for the effective use of manual defibrillators in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Aim: To evaluate whether paediatric emergency and critical care providers exposed to a blended learning session performed better and recalled more defibrillator skills than those exposed to face‐to‐face learning only. Study design: A two‐period prospective, stratified, single‐centre, simulation‐based, randomized, controlled trial. Methods: Registered nurses and postgraduate residents from either a paediatric emergency department or an intensive care unit were randomly assigned to a blended learning or face‐to‐face learning sessions on the recommended use of a manual defibrillator. Participants' adherence to recommendations was assessed by testing defibrillator skills in three consecutive paediatric cardiopulmonary scenarios performed on the day of the training and once again 2 months later. The primary endpoint was the number of errors observed during defibrillation, cardioversion, and transcutaneous pacing at the time of the initial intervention. Results: Fifty participants were randomized to receive the intervention and 51 to the control group. When pooling all three procedures, the median total errors per participant was lower (2 [IQR: 1‐4]) in providers exposed to blended learning than in those exposed to face‐to‐face learning only (3 [IQR: 2‐5]; P = .06). The median of total errors per procedure was also lower. However, both training methods appeared insufficient to maintain appropriate skill retention over time as a repetition of procedures 2 months later without any refresher learning session yielded more errors in both groups. Conclusions: Learners exposed to blended learning showed a reduced number in the total amount of errors compared with those exposed to face‐to‐face learning alone, with waning of skills over time. Relevance to clinical practice: Proficiently teaching the use of a manual defibrillator can be performed through blended learning.