Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

JEEHP : Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Educ Eval Health Prof > Volume 21; 2024 > Article
Research article Comparison of virtual and in-person simulations for sepsis and trauma resuscitation training in Singapore: a randomized controlled trial
Matthew Jian Wen Low1*orcid, Gene Wai Han Chan1orcid, Zisheng Li1orcid, Yiwen Koh2orcid, Chi Loong Jen3orcid, Zi Yao Lee1orcid, Lenard Tai Win Cheng1orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.33
Published online: November 18, 2024

1Emergency Medicine Department, National University Hospital, Singapore

2Department of Emergency Medicine, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore

3Department of Emergency Medicine, Woodlands Health, Singapore

*Corresponding email:  mlow@nus.edu.sg

Editor: Sun Huh, Hallym University, Korea

• Received: 14 October 2024   • Accepted: 5 November 2024
prev next
  • 159 Views
  • 51 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus

Purpose
This study aimed to compare cognitive, non-cognitive, and overall learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation skills in novices with virtual patient simulation (VPS) versus in-person simulation (IPS).
Methods
A randomized controlled trial was conducted on junior doctors in 1 emergency department from January to December 2022, comparing 70 minutes of VPS (n=19) versus IPS (n=21) in sepsis and trauma resuscitation. Using the nominal group technique, we created skills assessment checklists and determined Bloom’s taxonomy domains for each checklist item. Two blinded raters observed participants leading 1 sepsis and 1 trauma resuscitation simulation. Satisfaction was measured using the Student Satisfaction with Learning Scale (SSLS). The SSLS and checklist scores were analyzed using the 2-tailed t-test.
Results
For sepsis, there was no significant difference between VPS and IPS in overall scores (2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 5.4; Cohen’s d=0.38), as well as in items that were cognitive (1.1; 95% CI, -1.5 to 3.7) and not only cognitive (0.9; 95% CI, -0.4 to 2.2). Likewise, for trauma, there was no significant difference in overall scores (-0.9; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.3; Cohen’s d=0.19), as well as in items that were cognitive (-0.3; 95% CI, -2.8 to 2.1) and not only cognitive (-0.6; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3). The median SSLS scores were lower with VPS than with IPS (-3.0; 95% CI, -1.0 to -5.0).
Conclusion
For novices, there were no major differences in overall and non-cognitive learning outcomes for sepsis and trauma resuscitation between VPS and IPS. Learners were more satisfied with IPS than with VPS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05201950).

Figure

JEEHP : Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
TOP