ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
Biosensors, Biomarkers and Biometrics: a Bootcamp Perspective.
Article in BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Competitive physical performance is routinely monitored by wearable technology (biosensors), yet professional healthcare is not, despite high prevalence of trainee stress and burnout, notwithstanding the corresponding risk to patient safety. This study aimed to document the physiological stress response of UK Core Surgical Trainees (CSTs) during simulation training. Methods: CSTs (n=20, 10 male) were fitted with Vital Scout Wellness Monitors (VivaLNK, Campbell, California, USA) for an intensive 3-day training bootcamp. In addition to physiological parameters, CST demographics, event diaries and Maslach Burnout Inventory scores were recorded prospectively during exposure to three scenarios: interactive lectures, clinical skills simulation and non-technical (communication) training. Results: Baseline heart rate (BHR, 60 bpm (range 39-81 bpm)) and baseline respiratory rate (14/min (11-18/min)) varied considerably and did not correlate (rho 0.076, p=0.772). BHR was associated with weekly exercise performed (66 bpm (<1 hour) vs 43 bpm (>5 hour), rho -0.663, p=0.004). Trainee response (standardised median heart rate vs BHR) revealed heart rate was related proportionately to lectures (71 bpm, p<0.001), non-technical skills training (79 bpm, p<0.001) and clinical skills simulation (88 bpm, p<0.001). Respiratory rate responded similarly (p<0.001 in each case). Heart rate during clinical skills simulation was associated with Discussion: Stress response, as derived from positive sympathetic heart rate drive varied over two-fold, with a direct implication on oxygen uptake and energy expenditure, and highlighting the daily physical demands placed upon clinicians.
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.