Skip to content

High Fidelity Simulation vs Standard Teaching Training of Cardiac Resuscitation

High Fidelity Simulation In Medecine Education

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02483546
Acronym
SIMCARE
Enrollment
181
Registered
2015-06-29
Start date
2014-01-31
Completion date
2015-09-30
Last updated
2016-06-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cardiac Arrest

Keywords

Medical education, simulation, ACLS

Brief summary

High fidelity Simulation has spread from anesthesiology to other disciplines such as internal medicine, pediatrics, and emergency medicine . Over the past decade, the use of simulation in medical education has increased exponentially. The term ''simulation'' spans a wide variety of formats, from the low-tech actor portraying a standardized patient to high-fidelity mannequin-based human patient simulation (HPS). HPS is able of both simulating realistic patient encounters and giving real-time, physiologically accurate feedback. Studies thus far show that use of simulation in training medical students and residents is helpful in strengthening students' knowledge and in evaluating their performance. Students appreciate simulation-based education as ''an opportunity to learn new skills in a safe environment .

Detailed description

This was a randomized, controlled trial of a simulation- based educational intervention designed to increase medicine student's clinical skills in cardiac arrest procedures .The investigators included 181 fifth-year medical students rotating in the emergency department of Fattouma Bourguiba University hospital of Monastir (Tunisia) during the period from January 2013 to January 2014.Students were randomized into two groups using a random number generator to an intervention group (simulatortrained, n = 99) or a control group (traditionally teaching, n =82). The investigators conducted a prospective, randomized, non-blinded study to determine whether simulation based training is superior to traditional teaching in the assessment and management of simulated patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by ventricular fibrillation.

Interventions

DEVICELaerdal®

simulation- based educational intervention

BEHAVIORALhuma patient based training

Students randomized to receive simulation training .The mannequin Siman 3G laerdal® displays multiple physiologic and pharmacologic responses. Three volunteers were involved in the scenario while the others were observers through an audiovisual projection. Students participating in the scenario were given 15 minutes to evaluate and manage a 60-year-old man with a known history of coronary artery disease and diabetes who presented to the emergency department with chest pain revealing an acute ST elevation myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular fibrillation. Students were required to recognize and manage ventricular fibrillation when the patient became pulseless and unresponsive. After performing the simulation, the entire group was convened for debriefing of the case.

BEHAVIORALtraditionally teaching

Control group students received a traditional course using slides during 60 minutes about the management of cardio pulmonary resuscitation according to the latest recommendations of the AHA. This course is offered by the same trainer who participated in the simulation session. Students were free to ask questions as the progress of education. The same educational objectives were treated with the two groups.

Sponsors

University of Monastir
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Medecine students

Exclusion criteria

* Non Medecine students

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
better acquisition of cognitive skills for studentsjust after randomisation (one day)Pretest using 20 multiple choice questions after randomization. A second round of the same testing was then conducted for both groups just after the course (posttest). The test score range from 0 to 20 (maximum). The difference between the rating of the post-test and pre-test identifies the delta score of the student.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Satisfaction 5 point likert scalejust after randomisation (one day)Students rated their satisfaction level with a 5 point likert scale framed as attitude toward simulation compared with control group: dissatisfied (1 point), fairly satisfied (2 points), neither satisfied (3points), satisfied (4 points), and very satisfied (5 points).

Countries

Tunisia

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026