ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2015
Simulation training for foundation doctors on the management of the acutely ill patient.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Under- and post-graduate training to manage the acutely unwell patient: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Improving safety for medical students and patients during medical electives-a novel simulation-based course.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA study evaluating subjective trainee responses to simulation training organized by the Malta Foundation Program in particular whether this changed their clinical practice.
methodFeedback using a standardized questionnaire was obtained from 120 (M=55%) participants. A 0-10 Likert scale was used to evaluate responses.
resultsParticipants scored the simulation sessions as "useful" at 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.4-8.0), rated "the overall experience" at 7.5 (95% CI 7.2-7.8), and thought it made a change in "daily practice" at 5.83 (95% CI 5.4-6.3). The score for the tutor "creating a satisfactory learning environment" and "quality of simulator equipment" was 7.8 (95% CI 7.6-8.1) and 7.7 (95% CI 7.4-8), respectively. Trainees rated "how close was the simulation to a real-life scenario" as 6.24 (95% CI 5.9-6.6). When asked whether the presence of colleagues hindered or helped, the majority were neutral 50 (41.7%), 36 (30%) said it hindered, while only 21 (28.3%) felt it helped. In contrast, 94 (78.33%) stated it was useful to observe colleagues while only 5 (4.2%) stated it was not. Likelihood for future participation was 7.4 (95% CI 7-7.8). Trainees recommended a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-5) simulations per year.
conclusionTrainees rated the sessions as useful and asked for more sessions possibly at an undergraduate level. Rating for equipment and tutors was positive; however, some felt that the effect on daily practice was limited. Most were comfortable observing others and uncomfortable being observed. The value of increasing sessions to 3-4 per year, timing them before clinical attachments and audiovisual prebriefing for candidates naïve to simulation needs to be evaluated in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.