Background

Shoulder dystocia (SD) requires emergent intervention to prevent maternal and fetal harm, and simulation models for training can be expensive. We developed a novel, cheap and easily transportable low-fidelity simulation (LFS) model to compare to a commercially available high-fidelity simulation (HFS) model.

Methods

Emergency medicine residents were randomized to training on the HFS or novel LFS model. Subjects completed a pretest and a 1-week and 6-month posttest including a self-assessment and a simulated SD delivery.

Results

Twenty-seven of the 43 residents completed the study (63%). The number of individuals performing dangerous maneuvers at baseline was similar, 1 week after training was five in HFS and 11 in LFS (p = 0.08) groups and at 6 months was again similar between groups. Mean checklist scores for appropriate actions increased 1 week after training but returned to baseline by 6 months and were similar between groups. The rate of successful delivery, median time to successful delivery, and maximum force applied improved at 1 week and was sustained at 6 months in both groups.

Conclusion

Within our limited study population, we did not find a large difference in the occurrence of dangerous actions during simulated SD delivery following HFS and LFS training. Our novel and easily transportable LFS trainer, assembled for less than US$10 each, may be a useful tool to train inexperienced providers on the steps of this procedure. However, this requires further study, as does whether HFS models with force monitoring capabilities may be helpful to train providers to minimize dangerous maneuvers such as the application of excessive force.

Objective

The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of telesimulation versus standard simulation in teaching medical students the management of critically ill patients.

Methods

Prospective, randomized crossover study of 32 fourth-year medical students at a university medical simulation center. Students were randomized to the standard simulation (SIM) or telesimulation (TeleSIM) group between September 2014 and February 2015. The SIM group experience included participating in a live, fully immersive simulation case followed by debriefing with their SIM cohort and a live TV Internet connection to the TeleSIM group. The TeleSIM group experience included remotely observing the live simulation case at an off-site location, followed by a shared group debriefing via live TV Internet connection. Subject assessment was performed with a written evaluation tool. During a second instructional session, the students crossed over and participated in a different simulation scenario and assessment. Mean evaluation scores were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were analyzed via linear regression. Our secondary outcome was a survey evaluating the perceptions and attitudes held between the two simulation modalities.

Results

Of 33 eligible students, 32 participated in the study (97.0%). We found no significant difference in the mean evaluation scores of the two groups: SIM group mean = 96.6% (95% CI = 94.5%-98.6%) and TeleSIM group mean = 96.8% (95% CI = 94.8%-98.9%). We also found no significant difference in the favorability of teaching modality (TeleSIM vs. SIM) on the survey.

Conclusion

In our prospective randomized crossover study evaluating telesimulation versus standard simulation, we found no significant difference in evaluation scores among the two groups. There was also no significant difference found in the favorability of one teaching modality on a posteducational session survey. Our data support and highlight the capability of telesimulation to provide educational benefit to learners who do not have direct access to simulation resources.

BACKGROUND: Didactics play a key role in medical education. There is no standardized didactic evaluation tool to assess quality and provide feedback to instructors. Cognitive load theory provides a framework for lecture evaluations. We sought to develop an evaluation tool, rooted in cognitive load theory, to assess quality of didactic lectures. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus for items in a lecture evaluation tool. Nine emergency medicine educators with expertise in cognitive load participated in three modified Delphi rounds. In the first two rounds, experts rated the importance of including each item in the evaluation rubric on a 1 to 9 Likert scale with 1 labeled as not at all important and 9 labeled as extremely important. In the third round, experts were asked to make a binary choice of whether the item should be included in the final evaluation tool. In each round, the experts were invited to provide written comments, edits, and suggested additional items. Modifications were made between rounds based on item scores and expert feedback. We calculated descriptive statistics for item scores. RESULTS: We completed three Delphi rounds, each with 100% response rate. After Round 1, we removed one item, made major changes to two items, made minor wording changes to nine items, and modified the scale of one item. Following Round 2, we eliminated three items, made major wording changes to one item, and made minor wording changes to one item. After the third round, we made minor wording changes to two items. We also reordered and categorized items for ease of use. The final evaluation tool consisted of nine items. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a lecture assessment tool rooted in cognitive load theory specific to medical education. This tool can be applied to assess quality of instruction and provide important feedback to speakers.

Background

COVID necessitated the shift to virtual resident instruction. The challenge of learning via virtual modalities has the potential to increase cognitive load. It is important for educators to reduce cognitive load to optimize learning, yet there are few available tools to measure cognitive load. The objective of this study is to identify and provide validity evidence following Messicks' framework for an instrument to evaluate cognitive load in virtual emergency medicine didactic sessions.

Methods

This study followed Messicks' framework for validity including content, response process, internal structure, and relationship to other variables. Content validity evidence included: (1) engagement of reference librarian and literature review of existing instruments; (2) engagement of experts in cognitive load, and relevant stakeholders to review the literature and choose an instrument appropriate to measure cognitive load in EM didactic presentations. Response process validity was gathered using the format and anchors of instruments with previous validity evidence and piloting amongst the author group. A lecture was provided by one faculty to four residency programs via Zoom^TM. Afterwards, residents completed the cognitive load instrument. Descriptive statistics were collected; Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency of the instrument; and correlation for relationship to other variables (quality of lecture).

Results

The 10-item Leppink Cognitive Load instrument was selected with attention to content and response process validity evidence. Internal structure of the instrument was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80). Subscales performed well-intrinsic load (α = 0.96, excellent), extrinsic load (α = 0.89, good), and germane load (α = 0.97, excellent). Five of the items were correlated with overall quality of lecture (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The 10-item Cognitive Load instrument demonstrated good validity evidence to measure cognitive load and the subdomains of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. This instrument can be used to provide feedback to presenters to improve the cognitive load of their presentations.

Lectures are a common instructional method in medical education. Understanding the cognitive processes and theories involved in learning is essential for lecturers to be effective. Cognitive load theory is one theory that is becoming increasingly recognized in medical education and addresses the appropriate use of one's working memory. Memory is essential to knowledge acquisition. Two types of memory can be considered, working memory (processing of information) and long-term memory (storage of information). Working memory has a limited capacity. Cognitive load refers to the amount of information processing activity imposed on working memory and can be divided into three domains: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. By attending to cognitive load, educators can promote learning. This paper highlights various ways of improving cognitive load for learners during lecture-based instruction by minimizing extraneous load, optimizing intrinsic load, and promoting germane load.

Although HIV-positive patients are at higher risk for developing a variety of infection-related cancers, the prevalence of infections with the seven known cancer-associated viruses has not been studied. Luciferase immunoprecipitation systems were used to evaluate antiviral antibodies in four 23-person groups: healthy blood donors and HIV-infected patients with oral hairy leukoplakia (OLP), Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Antibody profiling revealed that all HIV-positive individuals were strongly seropositive for anti-gp41 and antireverse transcriptase antibodies. However, anti-p24 HIV antibody levels were highly variable and some OLP and KS patients demonstrated weak or negative responses. Profiling two EBV antigens revealed no statistical difference in antibody levels among the three HIV-infected groups. A high frequency of KSHV infection was detected in HIV patients including 100% of KS, 78% of OLP, and 57% of NHL patients. Most HIV-infected subjects (84%) showed anti-HBV core antibodies, but only a few showed antibodies against HCV. MCV seropositivity was also common (94%) in the HIV-infected individuals and KS patients showed statistically higher antibody levels compared to the OLP and NHL patients. Overall, 68% of the HIV-infected patients showed seropositivity with at least four cancer-associated viruses. Antibody profiles against these and other infectious agents could be useful for enhancing the clinical management of HIV patients.