Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565457›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Knowledge acquisition and retention after a high flow training programme in Peru: a quasi-experimental single group pre-post design.

Laura E Ellington, Rosario Becerra, Gabriela Mallma, José Tantaleán da Fieno, Deepthi Nair, Frankline Onchiri, Katie R Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura E EllingtonGraduate Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7904-4249
Rosario BecerraDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño, Lima, Peru.
Gabriela MallmaDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño, Lima, Peru.
José Tantaleán da FienoDepartamento de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño, Lima, Peru.
Deepthi NairSeattle Children's Core for Biomedical Statistics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Frankline OnchiriSeattle Children's Core for Biomedical Statistics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Katie R NielsenDepartment of Pediatrics, Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA ktruth@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6127-7167
Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño · PEFederico Villarreal National University · PEUniversity of Washington · USUniversity of Washington Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRespiratory infections remain the leading infectious cause of death in children under 5 and disproportionately affect children in resource-limited settings. Implementing non-invasive respiratory support can reduce respiratory-related mortality. However, maintaining competency after deployment can be difficult. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive multidisciplinary high-flow training programme in a Peruvian paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

designQuasi-experimental single group pre-post intervention study design.

settingQuaternary care PICU in a resource-constrained setting in Lima, Peru.

participantsAttending physicians, fellows, paediatric residents, registered nurses, respiratory therapists and medical technicians working in the PICU were invited to participate.

interventionsConcurrent with initial high-flow deployment, we implemented a training programme consisting of lectures, case-based discussion and demonstrations with baseline, 3-month and 12-month training sessions. Pre-training and post-training assessment surveys were distributed surrounding all training sessions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was achieving minimum competency (median score of 80%) on the high flow training assessment tool. Secondary outcomes included knowledge acquisition (differences in pre-baseline and post-baseline training assessments), short-term retention (differences in post-baseline and pre-3-month refresher training assessments) and long-term retention (differences in post-3-month refresher and pre-12-month refresher training assessments).

resultsEighty participants (50% nurses, 15% ICU physicians and 34% other providers) completed the baseline assessment. Participants showed improvement in overall score and all subtopics except the clinical application of knowledge after baseline training (p<0.001). Participants failed to retain minimum competency at 3-month and 12-month follow-up assessments (70% (IQR: 57-74) and 70% (IQR: 65-74), respectively). After repeat training sessions, overall knowledge continued to improve, exceeding baseline performance (78% (IQR: 70-87), 83% (IQR: 74-87) and 87% (IQR: 83-91) at baseline, 3 and 12 months, respectively).

conclusionThis study suggests the need for repeat training sessions to achieve and maintain competency after the implementation of new technology.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceContinuous Positive Airway PressureInservice TrainingChildEducational MeasurementHealth PersonnelHumansIntensive Care Units, PediatricPeruRespiratory Tract Infectionseducation & training (see medical education & training)International health servicespaediatric intensive & critical carepaediatric thoracic medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID32565457
PMCPMC7307545
OpenAlexW3036564631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.