RESUMEN
RATIONALE: Situation awareness has been defined as the perception of the elements in the environment within volumes of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future. Intensivists often make time-sensitive critical decisions, and loss of situation awareness can lead to errors. It has been shown that simulation-based training is superior to lecture-based training for some critical scenarios. Because the methods of training to improve situation awareness have not been well studied in the medical field, we compared the impact of simulation vs. lecture training using the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) score. OBJECTIVES: To identify an effective method for teaching situation awareness. METHODS: We randomly assigned 17 critical care fellows to simulation vs. lecture training. Training consisted of eight cases on airway management, including topics such as elevated intracranial pressure, difficult airway, arrhythmia, and shock. During the testing scenario, at random times between 4 and 6 minutes into the simulation, the scenario was frozen, and the screens were blanked. Respondents then completed the 28 questions on the SAGAT scale. Sample items were categorized as Perception, Projection, and Comprehension of the situation. Results were analyzed using SPSS Version 21. RESULTS: Eight fellows from the simulation group and nine from the lecture group underwent simulation testing. Sixty-four SAGAT scores were recorded for the simulation group and 48 scores were recorded for the lecture group. The mean simulation vs. lecture group SAGAT score was 64.3 ± 10.1 (SD) vs. 59.7 ± 10.8 (SD) (P = 0.02). There was also a difference in the median Perception ability between the simulation vs. lecture groups (61.1 vs. 55.5, P = 0.01). There was no difference in the median Projection and Comprehension scores between the two groups (50.0 vs. 50.0, P = 0.92, and 83.3 vs. 83.3, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant, albeit modest, difference between simulation training and lecture training on the total SAGAT score of situation awareness mainly because of the improvement in perception ability. Simulation may be a superior method of teaching situation awareness.
Asunto(s)
Manejo de la Vía Aérea , Cuidados Críticos , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/métodos , Becas , Neumología/educación , Entrenamiento Simulado/métodos , Cardiología/educación , Medicina de Emergencia/educación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Nefrología/educación , Pediatría/educación , EnseñanzaRESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 million visits to US emergency departments (EDs) annually. These patients are usually treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, opioids, or skeletal muscle relaxants, often in combination. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes and pain at 1 week and 3 months after an ED visit for acute LBP among patients randomized to a 10-day course of (1) naproxen + placebo; (2) naproxen + cyclobenzaprine; or (3) naproxen + oxycodone/acetaminophen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized, double-blind, 3-group study was conducted at one urban ED in the Bronx, New York City. Patients who presented with nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP of 2 weeks' duration or less were eligible for enrollment upon ED discharge if they had a score greater than 5 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The RMDQ is a 24-item questionnaire commonly used to measure LBP and related functional impairment on which 0 indicates no functional impairment and 24 indicates maximum impairment. Beginning in April 2012, a total of 2588 patients were approached for enrollment. Of the 323 deemed eligible for participation, 107 were randomized to receive placebo and 108 each to cyclobenzaprine and to oxycodone/acetaminophen. Follow-up was completed in December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were given 20 tablets of naproxen, 500 mg, to be taken twice a day. They were randomized to receive either 60 tablets of placebo; cyclobenzaprine, 5 mg; or oxycodone, 5 mg/acetaminophen, 325 mg. Participants were instructed to take 1 or 2 of these tablets every 8 hours, as needed for LBP. They also received a standardized 10-minute LBP educational session prior to discharge. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was improvement in RMDQ between ED discharge and 1 week later. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable among the 3 groups. At baseline, median RMDQ score in the placebo group was 20 (interquartile range [IQR],17-21), in the cyclobenzaprine group 19 (IQR,17-21), and in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group 20 (IQR,17-22). At 1-week follow-up, the mean RMDQ improvement was 9.8 in the placebo group, 10.1 in the cyclobenzaprine group, and 11.1 in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group. Between-group difference in mean RMDQ improvement for cyclobenzaprine vs placebo was 0.3 (98.3% CI, -2.6 to 3.2; P = .77), for oxycodone/acetaminophen vs placebo, 1.3 (98.3% CI, -1.5 to 4.1; P = .28), and for oxycodone/acetaminophen vs cyclobenzaprine, 0.9 (98.3% CI, -2.1 to 3.9; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP presenting to the ED, adding cyclobenzaprine or oxycodone/acetaminophen to naproxen alone did not improve functional outcomes or pain at 1-week follow-up. These findings do not support use of these additional medications in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01587274.