ArticleAtencion primaria2020
[Evaluation of a training model for health professionals in the care of critical patients: AIPCAP Study].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulated Clinical Stations in Quality and Patient Safety in a Primary Care Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reducing patients' rate of frequent attendance through a training intervention for physicians.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- In Situ Simulation: A Strategy to Restore Patient Safety in Intensive Care Units after the COVID-19 Pandemic? Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the validity, acceptability, and impact on the level of knowledge and skills of Primary Care health professionals of a training model aimed at improving the care of critical patients.
designA quasi-experimental interventional, multicentre study. LOCATION: Eight health care teams in Barcelona.
participantsA total of 272 professionals.
interventionsA training program consisting of 48 simulations of acute myocardial infarction and stroke. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: A checklist was used to evaluate critical patient skills, effect of training on the knowledge of the participants, and a satisfaction survey. The training was carried out after 2 series of simulations (AMI+Stroke). In the second series, 3evaluations were made: in situ, one week after, and at 3weeks. Concordance and reliability were measured. The differences in means were analysed using the Student t test for paired data.
resultsA total of 449 knowledge tests were answered, with a higher score being obtained at the end of each simulation (3.89 -SD 1.01 vs. 3.21 -SD 1.09). Doctors obtained better medical scores than nurses (3.81 - SD 0.87 vs. 3.32 - SD 1.15), and professionals with a specialty completed scored more than those in training (MIR) (3.6 - SD 1.08 vs. 3.4 - SD 1.18). The mean score was 7.7 points (SD 1.56) in the first evaluation, and improved to 9.1 points (SD 0.78). The kappa index was greater than 0.40 in all cases.
conclusionsA training methodology in the management of emergencies in Primary Care based on simulations is valid, reliable and well accepted, achieving an improvement in the level of knowledge and skills of the participating professionals.
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.