RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Opportunities to practice procedural skills in the clinical learning environment are decreasing, and faculty time to coach skills is limited, even in simulation-based training. Self-directed learning with hands-on practice early in a procedural skill course might help maximize the benefit of later faculty coaching and clinical experience. However, it may also lead to well-learned errors if learners lack critical guidance. The present study sought to investigate the effects of a hands-on, self-directed "study hall" for central line insertion among first-year residents. METHODS: Learner cohorts before vs. after introduction of the study hall (n = 49) were compared on their pre- and post-test performance of key procedural behaviors that were comparable across cohorts, with all learners receiving traditional instructor-led training between tests. RESULTS: Study hall participants spent a median of 116 min in hands-on practice (range 57-175). They scored higher at pre-test (44% vs. 27%, p = .00; Cohen's d = 0.95) and at post-test (80% vs. 72%, p = .02; Cohen's d = 0.69). A dose-response relationship was found, such that 2 h of study hall were roughly equivalent to the performance improvement seen with four clinical observations or supervised insertions of central lines. CONCLUSIONS: Self-directed, hands-on "study hall" supported improved procedural skill learning in the context of limited faculty availability. Potential additional benefits make the approach worth further experimentation and evaluation.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: A key question in simulation-based education is how to maximize learning within time and resource limits, including how best to balance hands-on practice versus reflective debriefing. Several instructional design frameworks suggest setting the balance according to the type of learning objective(s); however, broad professional activities such as team-based cardiopulmonary resuscitation include several interrelated component skills. This study experimentally manipulated hands-on practice versus reflective debriefing for cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills, hypothesizing that the former best supports learning taskwork (eg, compression quality), whereas the latter best supports learning teamwork. METHODS: The study was a randomized comparison trial with a pretest and posttest. Twenty-six teams of 5 to 6 first-year residents underwent either "drill" practice of key resuscitation phases, designed to maximize deliberate practice opportunities for individual and team skills, or "scrimmage" practice, designed to maximize full-scenario rehearsals and reflective debriefs. Key taskwork and teamwork behaviors were coded, and compression quality was collected and analyzed from an accelerometer. RESULTS: Most performance parameters improved considerably from a pretest to posttest for both taskwork (eg, percent correct compression depth 62%-81%, P = 0.01) and teamwork (eg, role leadership, 47%-70%, P = 0.00). Only 2 parameters improved differently by condition, favoring "drill" training: checking "Do Not Actively Resuscitate" wristband (odds ratio = 14.75, P = 0.03) and use of compression adjuncts (estimated marginal means = 75% versus 67%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the notion that component skills in resuscitation do not clearly and exclusively constitute "taskwork" versus "teamwork," both instructional designs led to similar improvements despite differences in the balance between hands-on practice versus reflection.