medigraphic.com
ISSN 2683-2348 (Electronic)
Federación Latinoamericana de Simulación Clínica y Seguridad del Paciente

2021, Number 2

Next >>

Simulación Clínica 2021; 3 (2)

Kirkpatrick evaluation of a clinical simulation program for clinical laboratory technician students

Figueroa-Gómez LI, Bustos-Toledo HS, Plaza-Garrido AV, Erpel-Norambuena JM

Language: Spanish
References: 39
Page: 47-54
PDF size: 233.17 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The student's direct dealings with the patient and their fluids is considered a risky academic practice. For this reason, a simulation program for clinical laboratory technician students is proposed. Objective: To determine, using the Kirkpatrick 4-level model, whether simulated training is a feasible method to implement. Material and methods: Prospective, non-concurrent, non-controlled cohort study. An annual program of two training modules was developed and executed for two generational groups (e2015-2016 and e2017), addressing Clinical Laboratory and Microbiology contents. Student satisfaction with the program (reaction), knowledge acquired in the program (learning), transfer of skills to the work context (behavior), and the employability rate of students involved in the program (impact) were evaluated. Results: The average results obtained for e2015-2016 were reaction = 3.90 ± 0.07, learning = 58.87 ± 6.26, behavior 88.73 ± 4.84, and impact = 70%. The results obtained for e2017 were higher in all dimensions. Discussion: The implementation of the program, due to the high satisfaction expressed by students, teachers, and technical heads of laboratories, as well as its associated indicators, shows an attractive methodological proposal of high feasibility and reproducibility at the institutional level.


REFERENCES

  1. Leslie K, Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Esdaile M, Reeves S. Advancing faculty development in medical education. Acad Med. 2013; 88 (7): 1038-1045. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294fd29.

  2. Erlen JA. Patient safety, error reduction, and ethical practice. Orthop Nurs. 2007; 26 (2): 130-133. doi: 10.1097/01.NOR.0000265872.57018.88.

  3. Lewkonia R. Patient rights and medical education: clinical principles. Med Teach. 2011; 33 (5): 392-396. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.535869.

  4. Durham CF, Alden KR. Enhancing patient safety in nursing education through patient simulation. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. Available in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21328731

  5. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med Teach. 2013; 35 (10): e1511-e1530. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632.

  6. Corvetto M, Bravo MP, Montaña R, Utili F, Escudero E, Boza C et al. Simulación en educación médica: una sinopsis. Rev Méd Chile. 2013; 141 (1): 70-79. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872013000100010

  7. Lateef F. Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010; 3 (4): 348-352. doi: 10.4103/0974-2700.70743.

  8. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Wang AT, Cook DA. Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28 (8): 1078-1089. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2264-5.

  9. Shulman LS. From minsk to pinsk: why a scholarship of teaching and learning? J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2000; 1 (1): 48-53.

  10. Martin L. Defining the scholarship of teaching versus scholarly teaching. Teach Learn High Educ. 2007; (46): 1-16. Available in: http://www.stlhe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/STLHE-Newsletter-46-2007-Summer.pdf

  11. Valkonen I. New 3-year education program for health technicians at Mikkili Technical College. Sairaanhoitaja. 1974; 50 (22): 15-18.

  12. Blackwell TH, Halsey RM, Reinovsky JH. Emergency medical technician training for medical students: a two-year experience. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016; 20 (4): 518-523. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2015.1115930.

  13. Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006; 2006: 359-63.

  14. Heydari MR, Taghva F, Amini M, Delavari S. Using Kirkpatrick's model to measure the effect of a new teaching and learning methods workshop for health care staff. BMC Res Notes. 2019; 12 (1): 388. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4421-y.

  15. Hasani H, Bahrami M, Malekpour A, Dehghani M, Allahyary E, Amini M, et al. Evaluation of teaching methods in mass CPCR training in different groups of the society, an observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94 (21): e859. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000859.

  16. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach. 2012; 34 (5): e288-99. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637.

  17. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2004; 27 (3): 341-347. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011.

  18. Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: a useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009; 34 (3): 266-274. doi: 10.1080/13668250903093125.

  19. Yardley S, Dornan T. Kirkpatrick's levels and education "evidence". Med Educ. 2012; 46 (1): 97-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x.

  20. Dorri S, Akbari M, Sedeh M. Kirkpatrick evaluation model for in-service training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2016; 21 (5): 493. doi: 10.4103/1735-9066.193396.

  21. Etikan I, Abubakar MS, Sunusi AR. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. 2016 [Accessed April 17, 2018]; 5 (1): 1-4. Available in: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=146&paperId=10012045

  22. Kuntzleman TS, Jacobson EC. Teaching beer's law and absorption spectrophotometry with a smart phone: a substantially simplified protocol. J Chem Educ. 2016; 93 (7): 1249-1252. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00844.

  23. Levy-Lambert E. Manual of basic techniques for a health laboratory. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1980.

  24. Cornelius-White J. Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2007; 77 (1): 113-143. doi: 10.3102/003465430298563.

  25. Soares F, dos Reis L. The relationship between teachers and students in the classroom: communicative language teaching approach and cooperative learning strategy to improve learning. Master's Theses Proj. 2015 [Accessed April 17, 2018]. Available in: http://vc.bridgew.edu/theses

  26. Alanazi A, Nicholson N, Thomas S. The Use of Simulation Training to Improve Knowledge , Skills , and Confidence Among Healthcare Students : A Systematic Review. Internet J Allied Heal Sci Pract. 2017; 15 (3): 1540-1580.

  27. Devraj R, Butler LM, Gupchup GV, Poirier TI. Active-learning strategies to develop health literacy knowledge and skills. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 [Accessed April 17, 2018]; 74 (8): 137. Available in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21179248

  28. Gaspard J, Yang C-M. Training needs assessment of health care professionals in a developing country: the example of Saint Lucia. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16: 112. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0638-9.

  29. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993 [Accessed May 2, 2018]; 100 (3): 363-406. Available in: https://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

  30. Jaye P, Thomas L, Reedy G. 'The Diamond': a structure for simulation debrief. Clin Teach. 2015; 12 (3): 171-175. doi: 10.1111/tct.12300.

  31. Maestre JM, Rudolph JW. Theories and styles of debriefing: the good judgment method as a tool for formative assessment in healthcare. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2015; 68 (4): 282-285. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2014.05.018.

  32. Prozesky D. Assessment of learning. Community Eye Health. 2001; 14 (38): 27-28. Available in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1705919/pdf/jceh_14_38_027.pdf

  33. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2006.

  34. Lortie CJ. Ten simple rules for short and swift presentations. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017; 13 (3): e1005373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005373.

  35. Laschinger S, Medves J, Pulling C, McGraw DR, Waytuck B, Harrison MB, et al. Effectiveness of simulation on health profession students' knowledge, skills, confidence and satisfaction. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008; 6 (3): 278-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00108.x.

  36. Griswold-Theodorson S, Ponnuru S, Dong C, Szyld D, Reed T, McGaghie WC. Beyond the simulation laboratory: a realist synthesis review of clinical outcomes of simulation-based mastery learning. Acad Med. 2015; 90 (11): 1553-1560. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000938.

  37. Deane RP, Murphy DJ. Impact of a personal learning plan supported by an induction meeting on academic performance in undergraduate Obstetrics and Gynaecology: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2015; 15: 43. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0325-2.

  38. Campbell K, Taylor V, Douglas S. Effectiveness of online cancer education for nurses and allied health professionals; a systematic review using kirkpatrick evaluation framework. J Cancer Educ. 2019; 34 (2): 339-356. doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1308-2.

  39. Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR. BEME guide No. 1: best evidence medical education. Med Teach. 1999; 21 (6): 553-562. doi: 10.1080/01421599978960.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com