Recruiting Medical Students for a First Responder Project in the Social Age: Direct Contact Still Outperforms Social Media

Team leadership assessment after advanced life support courses comparing real teams vs. simulated teams

Aim

Effective team leadership is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and is taught during international advanced life support (ALS) courses. This study compared the judgement of team leadership during summative assessments after those courses using different validated assessment tools while comparing two different summative assessment methods.

Methods

After ALS courses, twenty videos of simulated team assessments and 20 videos of real team assessments were evaluated and compared. Simulated team assessment used an instructor miming a whole team, whereas real team assessment used course participants as a team that acted on the team leader's commands. Three examiners individually evaluated each video on four different validated team leadership assessment tools and on the original European Resuscitation Council's (ERC) scenario test assessment form which does not assess leadership. The primary outcome was the average performance summary score between all three examiners for each assessment method.

Results

The average performance summary score for each of the four assessment tools was significantly higher for real team assessments compared to simulated team assessments (all p-values < 0.01). The summary score of the ERC's scenario test assessment form was comparable between both assessment methods (p = 0.569), meaning that participants of both assessments performed equally.

Conclusion

Team leadership performance is rated significantly higher in real team summative assessments after ALS courses compared to simulated team assessments by four leadership assessment tools but not by the standard ERC's scenario test assessment form. These results suggest that summative assessments in ALS courses should integrate real team assessments, and a new assessment tool including an assessment of leadership skills needs to be developed.

Assessment of Human Factors After Advanced Life Support Courses Comparing Simulated Team and Real Team Assessment: A Randomized Controlled Cohort Trial

Aim

Human factors are essential for high-quality resuscitation team collaboration and are, therefore, taught in international advanced life support courses, but their assessment differs widely. In Europe, the summative life support course assessment tests mainly adhere to guidelines but few human factors. This randomized controlled simulation trial investigated instructors’ and course participants’ perceptions of human factors assessment after two different summative assessments.

Methods

All 5th/6th-year medical students who attended 19 advanced life support courses according to the 2015 European Resuscitation Council guidelines during one study year were invited to participate. Each course was randomized to either: (1) Simulated team assessment (one instructor simulates a team, and the assessed person leads this “team” through a cardiac-arrest scenario test); (2) Real team assessment (4 students form a team, one of them is assessed as the team leader; team members are not assessed and act only on team leader’s commands). After the summative assessments, instructors, and students rated the tests’ ability to assess human factors using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 = no agreement, 10 = total agreement).

Results

A total of 227 students participated in the 1-day Immediate Life Support courses, 196 students in the 2-day Advanced Life Support courses, additionally 54 instructors were included. Instructors judged all human factors significantly better in real team assessments; students rated leadership and situational awareness comparable between both assessments. Assessment pass rates were comparable between groups.

Conclusion

Summative assessment in real teams was perceived significantly better to assess human factors. These results might influence current summative assessment practices in advanced life support courses.

Residents as Research Subjects: Balancing Resident Education and Contribution to Advancing Educational Innovations

BACKGROUND

Research in education advances knowledge and improves learning, but the literature does not define how to protect residents' rights as subjects in studies or how to limit the impact of their participation on their clinical training.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a consensual framework on how to include residents as participants in education research, with the dual goal of protecting their rights and promoting their contributions to research.

METHODS

A nominal group technique approach was used to structure 3 iterative meetings held with the pre-existing residency training program committee and 7 invited experts between September 2018 and April 2019. Thematic text analysis was conducted to prepare a final report, including recommendations.

RESULTS

Five themes, each with recommendations, were identified: (1) Freedom of participation: participation, non-participation, or withdrawal from a study should not interfere with teacher-learner relationship (recommendation: improve recruitment and consent forms); (2) Avoidance of over-solicitation (recommendation: limit the number of ongoing studies); (3) Management of time dedicated to participation in research (recommendations: schedule and proportion of time for study participation); (4) Emotional safety (recommendation: requirement for debriefing and confidential counseling); and (5) Educational safety: data collected during a study should not influence clinical assessment of the resident (recommendation: principal investigator should not be involved in the evaluation process of learners in clinical rotation).

CONCLUSIONS

Our nominal group technique approach resulted in raising 5 specific issues about freedom of participation of residents in research in medical education, over-solicitation, time dedicated to research, emotional safety, and educational safety.