Rapid-cycle deliberate practice versus after-event debriefing clinical simulation in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a cluster randomized trial

Rapid cycle deliberate practice approach on resuscitation training: A systematic review

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) compared to traditional instruction or other forms of learning on resuscitation training outcomes and on clinical and/or patient-related outcomes.

Methods

As part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation it was conducted this review and searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane from inception to Feb 12th, 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.

Results

4420 abstracts were retrieved by the initial search and 10 additional studies were identified through other resources. Sixty-five studies were selected for eligibility and nine simulated studies met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was performed on three outcomes: time to chest compressions, time to defibrillation and time to first epinephrine given, which showed that RCDP had significantly shorter time to defibrillation and time to administration of epinephrine than controls. The overall certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes due to risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.

Conclusion

It may be reasonable to include RCDP as an instructional design feature of basic and advanced life support training. However, substantial variations of delivering RCDP exist and there is no uniform use of RCDP. Further research is necessary on medium/long-term effects of RCDP training, and on the effects on different target groups of training.

Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Training for Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Resident Education

Background

Simulation-based medical education has been used in medical training for decades. Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is a novel simulation strategy that uses iterative practice and feedback to achieve skill mastery. To date, there has been minimal evaluation of RCDP vs standard immersive simulation (IS) for the teaching of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to graduate medical education (GME) learners. Our primary objective was to compare the time to performance of Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) actions between trainees who completed RCDP vs IS.

Methods

This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled curriculum evaluation. A total of 55 postgraduate year-1 internal medicine and emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Residents were randomized to instruction by RCDP (28) or IS (27). Stress and ability were self-assessed before and after training using an anonymous survey that incorporated five-point Likert-type questions. We measured and compared times to initiate critical ACLS actions between the two groups during a subsequent IS.

Results

Prior learner experience between RCDP and IS groups was similar. Times to completion of the first pulse check, chest compression initiation, backboard placement, pad placement, initial rhythm analysis, first defibrillation, epinephrine administration, and antiarrhythmic administration were similar between RCDP and IS groups. However, RCDP groups took less time to complete the pulse check between compression cycles (6.2 vs 14.2 seconds, P = 0.01). Following training, learners in the RCDP and IS groups scored their ability to lead and their levels of anticipated stress similarly (3.43 vs 3.30, (P = 0.77), 2.43 vs. 2.41, P = 0.98, respectively). However, RCDP groups rated their ability to participate in resuscitation more highly (4.50 vs 3.96, P = 0.01). The RCDP groups also reported their realized stress of participating in the event as lower than that of the IS groups (2.36 vs 2.85, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Rapid cycle deliberate practice learners demonstrated a shorter pulse check duration, reported lower stress levels associated with their experience, and rated their ability to participate in ACLS care more highly than their IS-trained peers. Our results support further investigation of RCDP in other simulation settings.

Development and Effectiveness of a Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Neonatal Resuscitation Simulation Program: A Quasi-Experimental Study

The Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) simulation during neonatal resuscitation program (NRP) training provides in-event feedback for each simulation step, repeats the simulation from the beginning, and undergoes a continuous improvement process. It also offers after-event debriefing that involves follow-up discussion and reflection after completing simulations. These two methods differ in the timing and frequency of feedback application, and there may be differences in the effectiveness of neonatal resuscitation training. A quasi-experimental simulation study with a pre- and post-test design was used; the experimental group received RCDP simulation NRP training, based on the self-determination theory, while the control group received an after-event debriefing, following the NRP scenario. The experimental group displayed significantly improved clinical decision-making skills compared with the control group. When responding to emergencies involving high-risk newborns, we found that RCDP simulation during NRP training and better preparation for neonatal resuscitation among nursing students improved outcomes for newborns.

Validation of a Simulation-Based Resuscitation Curriculum for Maternal Cardiac Arrest

OBJECTIVE

To assess the knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy of health care participants completing a simulation-based blended learning training curriculum on managing maternal medical emergencies and maternal cardiac arrest (Obstetric Life Support).

METHODS

A formative assessment of the Obstetric Life Support curriculum was performed with a prehospital cohort comprising emergency medical services professionals and a hospital-based cohort comprising health care professionals who work primarily in hospital or urgent care settings and respond to maternal medical emergencies. The training consisted of self-guided precourse work and an instructor-led simulation course using a customized low-fidelity simulator. Baseline and postcourse assessments included multiple-choice cognitive test, self-efficacy questionnaire, and graded Megacode assessment of the team leader. Megacode scores and pass rates were analyzed descriptively. Pre- and post-self-confidence assessments were compared with an exact binomial test, and cognitive scores were compared with generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

The training was offered to 88 participants between December 2019 and November 2021. Eighty-five participants consented to participation; 77 participants completed the training over eight sessions. At baseline, fewer than half of participants were able to achieve a passing score on the cognitive assessment as determined by the expert panel. After the course, mean cognitive assessment scores improved by 13 points, from 69.4% at baseline to 82.4% after the course (95% CI 10.9-15.1, P <.001). Megacode scores averaged 90.7±6.4%. The Megacode pass rate was 96.1%. There were significant improvements in participant self-efficacy, and the majority of participants (92.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that the course met its educational objectives.

CONCLUSION

After completing a simulation-based blended learning program focused on managing maternal cardiac arrest using a customized low-fidelity simulator, most participants achieved a defensible passing Megacode score and significantly improved their knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy.

The impact of rapid cycle simulation deliberate practice on nursing student's resuscitation self-efficacy: A quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Nursing students often report anxiety about the performance of resuscitation in a placement context. Rapid cycle deliberate practice which involves re-running the scenario after de-brief allowing for the correction of errors and improved practice has been widely used to develop skills in resuscitation. Few studies have examined the use of rapid cycle deliberate practice to improve resuscitation confidence and self-efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

to assess if rapid cycle deliberate practice leads to improvements in resuscitation self-efficacy in pre-registration nursing students.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental pre and post-test design measuring self-efficacy using the Basic Resuscitation Skills - Self Efficacy Scale.

SETTING

University, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Students were invited to participate (n = 120) and 106 consented to take part in the study. Participants were in pre-determined practical groups with 56 in the experimental group and 50 in the control group.

METHODS

A pre and post-test of nursing students' self-efficacy during a resuscitation simulation scenario. The scenario will relate to a patient admitted to the emergency room with chest pain who then goes into cardiac arrest. The control group undertake the simulation exercise and then received a de-brief whereas the experimental group participated in a rerun of the scenario following the de-brief (deliberate practice). Both groups completed the Basic Resuscitation Skills Self-efficacy scale pre and post the session. Data were analysed using a paired sample t-test.

RESULTS

Both groups showed improved self-efficacy as a result of the simulation session. The difference in the post-test mean scores between the control and the experimental group was marginal and not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

rapid cycle deliberate practice simulation does not lead to improved resuscitation self-efficacy amongst pre-registration nursing students when compared with a single session.

ABSTRACT

Nursing students are often anxious about performing resuscitation in practice. Can rapid cycle deliberate practice improve resuscitation self-efficacy? Pre and post-test study (n=106) showed improved self-efficacy with no statistical difference between standard simulation and deliberate practice.