ArticleCureus2024
Improving Knowledge About Stroke Using Simulation Training.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Stroke is a medical emergency that is risk-stratified using a national scoring system called the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). The management of an acute stroke necessitates prompt management and swift decision-making. Human factors were identified in the literature as the main rate-limiting step to improving door-to-needle (DTN) time. We felt it would be prudent to design a local stroke course implemented at Great Western Hospital Swindon that incorporates both traditional and simulation-based elements to improve theoretical knowledge and emulate real-life scenarios. The objective of this course was to improve practical application in the efficient assessment and management of stroke patients, as this is critical to delivering timely treatment with thrombolysis or thrombectomy. Methods Twenty-four medical professionals (medical students and resident doctors) participated in our course between November 2022 and July 2023. The domains assessed included understanding thrombolysis, understanding thrombectomy, confidence in performing NIHSS, and confidence in the assessment of stroke patients. The effectiveness of the stroke simulation course was assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively with pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results There was a significant improvement (p<0.05) in all four assessed domains. There was a significant increase (p=0.0003) in the mean difference of score 3.75 (95% CI: 2.43-5.07) in understanding thrombolysis. Similarly, understanding of thrombectomy was significantly improved (p=0.0002) with a mean difference in score of 3.4 (95% CI: 2.28-4.46). There was also a significant increase (p<0.0001) in confidence in completing NIHSS scoring by a mean of 4.33 (95% CI: 3.55-5.12). Lastly, there was a significant increase (p=0.0012) in the mean by 2.75 (95% CI: 1.51-3.99) in confidence in the assessment of stroke. Overall, 95.8% of the participants found the course at least good, if not very good or excellent, and 91.7% would recommend this course to others. Conclusion We found traditional and simulation-based training to be effective in improving understanding of thrombolysis, understanding of thrombectomy, confidence in NIHSS scoring, and confidence in the assessment of stroke patients. This study validates the effectiveness of our course in improving assessment and management in acute stroke patients. We infer that improvements in these domains coupled with simulation training focused on human factors (e.g., fatigue affecting decision-making or logistical issues such as delays in neuroimaging due to scanner availability) would achieve better DTN time in the participants of our course.
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.