Comparison of traditional versus high-fidelity simulation in the retention of ACLS knowledge

• Published in: Resuscitation Vol. 82; no. 11; pp. 1440 - 1443
• Main Authors: Lo, Bruce M, Devine, Alicia S, Evans, David P, Byars, Donald V, Lamm, Olive Y, Lee, Rusty J, Lowe, Sean M, Walker, Laura L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Shannon Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.11.2011; Elsevier
• Subjects: ACLS; Adult; Advanced Cardiac Life Support - education; Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Anesthesia: equipment, devices; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiac arrest; Education; Education, Medical - methods; Emergency; High-fidelity simulation; Humans; Intensive care medicine; Knowledge retention; Manikins; Medical sciences; Patient Simulation; Retention (Psychology); Single-Blind Method; High-fidelity simulation; Education; Knowledge retention; ACLS; Cardiac arrest; Cardiocirculatory arrest; Intensive care; Simulation; Cardiovascular disease; Comparative study; Resuscitation
• ISSN: 0300-9572; 1873-1570
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.06.017

Abstract Objective We performed a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the retention of advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) knowledge between high-fidelity simulation training (HFST) and traditional training (TT) in medical students. Methods Medical students were randomized to HFST or TT for their ACLS training. Students were then tested on 2 different mega-code scenarios immediately after their training and then 1-year later. A survey was performed asking their satisfaction of ACLS training and confidence of ACLS knowledge with a 10-point rating scale. Results 93 students were randomized with 86 completing the study (HFST = 45, TT = 41). The HFST group scored a higher percentage correct on initial testing than the TT group (83% vs. 70%, P < 0.0001). However at 1-year follow up, both groups performed the same (66% vs. 66%, P = 0.84). Satisfaction with training was higher with the HFST compared to the TT group (9.0 vs. 7.8, P < 0.0001). Confidence in ACLS knowledge between HFST and TT groups were similar at baseline (6.9 vs. 6.5, P = 0.18) and at 1-year (4.8 vs. 4.5, P = 0.46). Conclusion Students demonstrated greater ACLS knowledge initially with HFST than with TT. However, after 1-year, both groups performed the same. Satisfaction with training was higher with HFST compared to TT. Confidence in ACLS knowledge was the same initially and decreased similarly over a 1-year time period regardless of the type of ACLS training. Further studies will need to determine optimal strategies to retain ACLS knowledge.