Training non-intensivist doctors to work with COVID-19 patients in intensive care units.
COVID-19
ICU
assessment
curriculum
education
pandemic response
skills preparation
test
training
viral outbreak
Journal
Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1399-6576
Titre abrégé: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
12
01
2021
received:
21
10
2020
accepted:
14
01
2021
pubmed:
3
2
2021
medline:
4
5
2021
entrez:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to an expected surge of COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care capacity was doubled at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, in March 2020. This resulted in an urgent need for doctors with competence in working with critically ill COVID-19 patients. A training course and a theoretical test for non-intensivist doctors were developed. The aims of this study were to gather validity evidence for the theoretical test and explore the effects of the course. The 1-day course was comprised of theoretical sessions and hands-on training in ventilator use, hemodynamic monitoring, vascular access, and use of personal protective equipment. Validity evidence was gathered for the test by comparing answers from novices and experts in intensive care. Doctors who participated in the course completed the test before (pretest), after (posttest), and again within 8 weeks following the course (retention test). Fifty-four non-intensivist doctors from 15 different specialties with a wide range in clinical experience level completed the course. The test consisted of 23 questions and demonstrated a credible pass-fail standard at 16 points. Mean pretest score was 11.9 (SD 3.0), mean posttest score 20.6 (1.8), and mean retention test score 17.4 (2.2). All doctors passed the posttest. Non-intensivist doctors, irrespective of experience level, can acquire relevant knowledge for working in the ICU through a focused 1-day evidence-based course. This knowledge was largely retained as shown by a multiple-choice test supported by validity evidence. The test is available in appendix and online.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Due to an expected surge of COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care capacity was doubled at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, in March 2020. This resulted in an urgent need for doctors with competence in working with critically ill COVID-19 patients. A training course and a theoretical test for non-intensivist doctors were developed. The aims of this study were to gather validity evidence for the theoretical test and explore the effects of the course.
METHODS
The 1-day course was comprised of theoretical sessions and hands-on training in ventilator use, hemodynamic monitoring, vascular access, and use of personal protective equipment. Validity evidence was gathered for the test by comparing answers from novices and experts in intensive care. Doctors who participated in the course completed the test before (pretest), after (posttest), and again within 8 weeks following the course (retention test).
RESULTS
Fifty-four non-intensivist doctors from 15 different specialties with a wide range in clinical experience level completed the course. The test consisted of 23 questions and demonstrated a credible pass-fail standard at 16 points. Mean pretest score was 11.9 (SD 3.0), mean posttest score 20.6 (1.8), and mean retention test score 17.4 (2.2). All doctors passed the posttest.
CONCLUSION
Non-intensivist doctors, irrespective of experience level, can acquire relevant knowledge for working in the ICU through a focused 1-day evidence-based course. This knowledge was largely retained as shown by a multiple-choice test supported by validity evidence. The test is available in appendix and online.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33529356
doi: 10.1111/aas.13789
pmc: PMC8013477
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
664-673Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 Jan;15(1):20-7
pubmed: 20951630
Med Teach. 2013 Oct;35(10):e1511-30
pubmed: 23941678
Adv Simul (Lond). 2018 Mar 09;3:5
pubmed: 29556423
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 13;69(Suppl 3):S185-S191
pubmed: 31517971
Med Teach. 2018 Apr;40(4):337-350
pubmed: 29390949
Acad Med. 2011 Jun;86(6):706-11
pubmed: 21512370
Anaesthesia. 2020 Jul;75(7):928-934
pubmed: 32246838
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):506-517
pubmed: 32272080
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1335-42
pubmed: 24693893
Am J Med. 2006 Feb;119(2):166.e7-16
pubmed: 16443422
Med Educ. 2007 Jan;41(1):23-31
pubmed: 17209889
Psychol Bull. 2014 Nov;140(6):1432-63
pubmed: 25150680
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):854-887
pubmed: 32222812
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Mar;15(1):109-128
pubmed: 18274876
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2020 Jul;6(4):196-198
pubmed: 32832099
JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1094-102
pubmed: 16954489
JAMA. 2008 Sep 10;300(10):1181-96
pubmed: 18780847
Lancet. 2020 Apr 25;395(10233):1321-1322
pubmed: 32277876
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Aug;15(3):395-401
pubmed: 19838814
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1481-95
pubmed: 25244186
BMJ. 2009 Apr 30;338:b1791
pubmed: 19406879
Lancet. 2015 Sep 5;386(9997):995-1007
pubmed: 26049252
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2215-2217
pubmed: 32147715
N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 18;349(25):2431-41
pubmed: 14681510
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020 Aug;14(4):514-520
pubmed: 32223776
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 May;65(5):664-673
pubmed: 33529356