The effect of pre-course e-learning prior to advanced life support training: A randomised controlled trial

University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Warwick, United Kingdom.
Resuscitation (Impact Factor: 3.96). 07/2010; 81(7):877-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The role of e-learning in contemporary healthcare education is quickly developing. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of an e-learning simulation programme (Microsim, Laerdal, UK) prior to attending an Advanced Life Support (ALS) course and the subsequent relationship to candidate performance.
An open label, multi-centre randomised controlled study was conducted. The control group received a course manual and pre-course MCQ four weeks prior to the face to face course. The intervention group in addition received the Microsim programme on a CD. The primary outcome was performance during a simulated cardiac arrest at the end of the course. Secondary outcomes were performance during multiple choice exams, resuscitation skills assessments and feedback to Microsim programme.
572 participants were randomised (287 Microsim, 285 control). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (performance during a standard cardiac arrest simulation) or secondary outcomes. User evaluations were favorable. 79% would recommend it to colleagues. 9% stated Microsim could replace the entire ALS course, 25% parts. Over 70% of participants' perceived that Microsim improved their understanding of the key learning domains of the ALS course.
Distributing Microsim to healthcare providers prior to attending an ALS courses did not improve either cognitive or psychomotor skills performance during cardiac arrest simulation testing. The challenge that lies ahead is to identify the optimal way to use e-learning as part of a blended approach to learning for this type of training programme.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Virtual patient simulation has grown substantially in health care education. A virtual patient simulation was developed as a refresher training course to reinforce nursing clinical performance in assessing and managing deteriorating patients.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2014; 16(9):e214. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3322 · 4.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Routine general practice data collection can help identify patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. To determine whether a training programme for primary care professionals improves the recording of cardiovascular disease risk factors in electronic health records. A quasi-experimental study without random assignment of professionals. This was an educational intervention study, consisting of an online-classroom 1-year training programme, and carried out in the Valencian community in Spain. The prevalence rates of recording of cardiovascular factors (recorded every 6 months over a 4-year period) were compared between intervention and control group. Clinical relevance was calculated by absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), and number of patients needed-to-attend (NNA), to avoid under-recording, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Linear regression models were used for each of the variables. Of the 941 professionals initially registered, 78.1% completed the programme. The ARR ranged from 1.87% (95% CI = 1.79 to 1.94) in the diagnosis of diabetes to 15.27% (95% CI = 15.14 to 15.40) in the recording of basal blood glucose. The NNA ranged from 7 in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose recording to 54 in the diagnosis of diabetes. The RRR ranged from 26.7% in the diagnosis of diabetes to 177.1% in the recording of the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). The rates of change were greater in the intervention group and the differences were significant for recording of cholesterol (P<0.001), basal blood glucose (P<0.001), smoking (P<0.001), alcohol (P<0.001), microalbuminuria (P = 0.001), abdominal circumference (P<0.001), and SCORE (P<0.001). The education programme had a beneficial effect at the end of the follow-up that was significant and clinically relevant. © British Journal of General Practice 2015.
    British Journal of General Practice 01/2015; 65(630):e32-40. DOI:10.3399/bjgp15X683137 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To subjectively and objectively compare an accessible interactive electronic library using Moodle with lectures for urology teaching of medical students.Methods Forty consecutive fourth-year medical students and one urology teacher were exposed to two teaching methods (4 weeks each) in the form of problem-based learning: - lectures and - student-centered group discussion based on Moodle (modular object-oriented dynamic learning environment) full time online delivered (24/7) with video surgeries, electronic urology cases and additional basic principles of the disease process.ResultsAll 40 students completed the study. While 30% were moderately dissatisfied with their current knowledge base, online learning course delivery using Moodle was considered superior to the lectures by 86% of the students. The study found the following observations: 1) the increment in learning grades ranged from 7.0 to 9.7 for students in the online Moodle course compared to 4.0 to 9.6 to didactic lectures; 2) the self-reported student involvement in the online course was characterized as large by over 60%; 3) the teacher-student interaction was described as very frequent (50%) and moderately frequent (50%); and 4) more inquiries and requisitions by students as well as peer assisting were observed from the students using the Moodle platform.Conclusions The Moodle platform is feasible and effective, enthusing medical students to learn, improving immersion in the urology clinical rotation and encouraging the spontaneous peer assisted learning. Future studies should expand objective evaluations of knowledge acquisition and retention.
    International Journal of Medical Informatics 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.11.001 · 2.72 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014