2019 HSC Section 2 - Practice Management

Fig. 2. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram. DREEM 5 Dundee Ready Edu- cation Environment Measure. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail- able at www.laryngoscope.com.]

other and provide feedback, along with instructor guid- ance providing a chance to learn from errors in a sup- portive environment. 18 This study is unusual in testing medical education interventions, in that a single-blinded, randomized con- trolled design was used to compare standard practice with a novel intervention. Often, simulation training is compared to no teaching at all. Although this can prove efficacy, it does not necessarily demonstrate added bene- fits in comparison to conventional teaching methods. Many trials of educational techniques rely on self- reported satisfaction with the simulation experience as the outcome measure with no objective findings. 4 As an author panel, we developed the two viva scenarios with marks for the management steps that we felt were most important. Although not a validated score, this gave

students performed scenario-based procedures on inani- mate models attached to a simulated patient. Their per- formance was videotaped, with structured feedback provided by both the tutors and simulated patients, which students reported to be extremely useful when compared to standard training. 15 Bridging the gap between theory and practice is crucial in medical train- ing, as it is expected that clinicians are adequately pre- pared before they start treating patients. 16 This is particularly relevant to modern training systems, where junior doctors often rotate between different specialties every 4 to 6 months creating a critically intensive learn- ing period, which is not perceived as such or provided for by the institutions and regulatory frameworks. 17 In our study, candidates were encouraged to critique each

TABLE I. Formal Assessment (Viva) Scores and Anonymous Questionnaire Responses for Both Training Groups, Along With P Values for Intergroup Difference.

Simulation Group, n 5

20 Control Group, n 5

18

P Value

Formal assessment Epiglottitis viva

27/30

23.2/30

.01

Epistaxis viva

27.4/30

23.6/30

.0001

Candidate reported Questionnaire (modified DREEM)

42/48

36/48

.000003

Recommendation?

3.8/4

3.3/4

.003

The data are displayed as group average score/maximum score achievable. DREEM 5 Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure.

Fig. 3. Epistaxis viva scores for both training groups.

Smith et al.: Simulation Training for ENT Emergencies

Laryngoscope 125: August 2015

219