ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Improving Resident Comfort with Central Venous Catheter Supervision: Use of an Error Management Training Approach.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. 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
Background: Simulation is a well-established component of central venous catheter (CVC) training. However, there is little published regarding how to train residents to supervise CVC insertion. Purpose: We describe a curriculum designed to help trainees identify potential procedural errors and improve their comfort with supervising CVC insertion. Patients and Methods: We conducted a one-group, pre-post-posttest study. All participants completed a pre-simulation assessment (Time 1) that evaluated residents' ability to identify potential complications with CVC insertion and their procedural completion and procedural supervision comfort. Residents then participated in a simulation in which they supervised a mock proceduralist insert a CVC and commit five pre-specified errors. Participants completed the same comfort assessment immediately following the simulation (Time 2) and repeat knowledge and comfort assessments five months later (Time 3). Results: Forty-seven interns participated in the study. Relative to Time 1 (M = 3.00, SD = 1.02), interns were significantly more comfortable supervising CVC insertion at Time 2 (M = 3.75, SD = 0.85) and at Time 3 (M = 4.08, SD = 0.58). Conclusion: We describe a simulation designed to help residents identify errors when supervising CVC insertion. Due to a poor survey response rate, no comparisons between pre- and post-simulation error identification could be determined. However, following our CVC supervisor simulation, participants reported immediate and sustained increases in their comfort supervising CVC placement.
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.