Telesimulation for Training in Infant Feeding: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jeanne Marshall, Charis Shiu, Madeline Raatz, Adriana Penman, Kelly Beak, Sally Clarke, Elizabeth C Ward
Author Information
  1. Jeanne Marshall: Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia. j.marshall@uq.edu.au. ORCID
  2. Charis Shiu: School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  3. Madeline Raatz: Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
  4. Adriana Penman: School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  5. Kelly Beak: Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
  6. Sally Clarke: Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
  7. Elizabeth C Ward: School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Abstract

Simulation is an education modality known to support clinical skill development. Unfortunately, access to simulation has been challenging, both prior to and during the pandemic. Simulation via telepractice, i.e., "telesimulation", has emerged, but little is known about whether outcomes are comparable to in-person simulation. This study compared in-person versus telesimulation learner outcomes in an infant feeding scenario. The secondary aim was to compare outcomes between novice and experienced Participants.This pragmatic randomized controlled trial included speech pathologists who could attend if randomized to the in-person modality. Block randomization matched Participants with < 6 months' infant feeding experience to those with > 6 months experience (2:1 ratio) into telesimulation or in-person simulation. Measures of clinical reasoning, confidence/anxiety, and satisfaction were collected, pre-, post-, and 4-weeks post-simulation.Overall, 39 clinicians completed either in-person simulation (n = 17) or telesimulation training (n = 22), including 16 experienced and 23 novice learners. Both in-person and telesimulation groups achieved significant improvements across time in clinical reasoning, self-reported confidence, and anxiety. The extent of change in clinical reasoning, confidence and anxiety was comparable between the telesimulation and in-person simulation groups. Comparing by experience, novice-level Participants reported significantly greater changes in confidence and anxiety than experienced Participants. Satisfaction levels were high regardless of simulation modality or experience.Participants in telesimulation and in-person simulation achieved similar improvements in the primary outcome measure of clinical reasoning, had comparable improvements in self-perceived confidence and anxiety, and demonstrated high satisfaction levels. Telesimulation is a promising means to improve clinician access to simulation training in infant feeding.

Keywords

References

  1. Dysphagia. 2016 Jun;31(3):407-15 [PMID: 26803776]
  2. Dysphagia. 2023 Oct;38(5):1308-1322 [PMID: 36692653]
  3. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2004 Dec;5(3):69-106 [PMID: 26158995]
  4. Children (Basel). 2023 Jan 15;10(1): [PMID: 36670719]
  5. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Summer;21(3):380-5 [PMID: 16110718]
  6. Acad Pediatr. 2015 Mar-Apr;15(2):134-42 [PMID: 25748973]
  7. ATS Sch. 2021 Oct 29;2(4):581-594 [PMID: 35083463]
  8. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2008 Jan 1;105(1):98-121 [PMID: 19568317]
  9. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008 Apr;39(2):192-8 [PMID: 18420522]
  10. J Telemed Telecare. 2019 Sep;25(8):484-492 [PMID: 29991316]
  11. Med Educ. 2020 Aug;54(8):696-708 [PMID: 32242966]
  12. Adv Simul (Lond). 2019 Dec 20;4(Suppl 1):23 [PMID: 31890318]
  13. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Aug 11;1(4):287-292 [PMID: 30051046]
  14. Clin Teach. 2021 Apr;18(2):121-125 [PMID: 33043589]
  15. Breastfeed Med. 2021 Apr;16(4):332-337 [PMID: 33493401]
  16. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Feb 17;1(2):132-136 [PMID: 30051023]
  17. BMJ. 1996 Mar 23;312(7033):770 [PMID: 8605469]
  18. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Feb 17;22(1):104 [PMID: 35177063]
  19. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Aug 06;21(8):e14587 [PMID: 31389340]
  20. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Oct;25(5):688-696 [PMID: 36062806]
  21. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015 Jun;17(3):230-40 [PMID: 25833074]
  22. J Pediatr Surg. 2023 Apr;58(4):669-674 [PMID: 36658075]
  23. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023 Nov 20;10:23821205231216067 [PMID: 38025030]
  24. Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1972506 [PMID: 34433385]
  25. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Mar 9;32(2):452-468 [PMID: 36692930]
  26. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022 Mar 10;31(2):942-958 [PMID: 35226538]

MeSH Term

Humans
Female
Male
Infant
Clinical Competence
Simulation Training
Adult
Speech-Language Pathology
Anxiety

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0simulationin-persontelesimulationclinicalfeedingparticipantsexperiencereasoningconfidenceanxietymodalityoutcomescomparableinfantexperiencedimprovementsSimulationknownaccessnovicerandomizedsatisfactiontraininggroupsachievedlevelshighTelesimulationTrainingeducationsupportskilldevelopmentUnfortunatelychallengingpriorpandemicviatelepracticeie"telesimulation"emergedlittlewhetherstudycomparedversuslearnerscenariosecondaryaimcompareThispragmaticcontrolledtrialincludedspeechpathologistsattendBlockrandomizationmatched< 6months'> 6months2:1ratioMeasuresconfidence/anxietycollectedpre-post-4-weekspost-simulationOverall39clinicianscompletedeithern = 17n = 22including1623learnerssignificantacrosstimeself-reportedextentchangeComparingnovice-levelreportedsignificantlygreaterchangesSatisfactionregardlessParticipantssimilarprimaryoutcomemeasureself-perceiveddemonstratedpromisingmeansimproveclinicianInfantFeeding:RandomizedControlledTrialBottlePatientPediatricdisorderSpeech–languagepathologyTelepractice

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.