ArticleBMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning2021
Examining novice anaesthesia trainee simulation performance: a tale of two clusters.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding performance differences between learners may provide useful context for optimising medical education. This pilot study aimed to explore a technique to contextualise performance differences through retrospective secondary analyses of two randomised controlled simulation studies. One study focused on speaking up (non-technical skill); the other focused on oxygen desaturation management (technical skill). Methods: We retrospectively analysed data from two independent simulation studies conducted in 2017 and 2018. We used multivariate hierarchical cluster analysis to explore whether participants in each study formed homogenous performance clusters. We then used mixed-design analyses of variance and χ Results: In both instances, a two-cluster solution emerged; one cluster represented trainees exhibiting higher performance relative to peers in the second cluster. Cluster membership was independent of experimental allocation in each of the original studies. There were no discernible demographic differences between cluster members. Performance differences between clusters persisted for at least 8 months for the non-technical skill but quickly disappeared following simulation training for the technical skill. High performers in speaking up initially reported lower task load than standard performers, a difference that disappeared over time. There was no association between performance and task load during desaturation management. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that cluster analysis can be used to objectively identify high-performing trainees for both a technical and a non-technical skill as observed in a simulated clinical setting. Non-technical skills may be more difficult to teach and retain than purely technical ones, and there may be an association between task load and initial non-technical performance. Further study is needed to understand what factors may confer inherent performance advantages, whether these advantages translate to clinical performance and how curricula can best be designed to drive targeted improvement for individual trainees.
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.