Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:54:21.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Video-Based Learning vs Traditional Lecture for Instructing Emergency Medicine Residents in Disaster Medicine Principles of Mass Triage, Decontamination, and Personal Protective Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2018

Henry A. Curtis ,
Karen Trang ,
Kevin W. Chason  and
Paul D. Biddinger
Henry A. Curtis*
Affiliation:
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California USA
Karen Trang
Affiliation:
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California USA
Kevin W. Chason
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York USA
Paul D. Biddinger
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts USA
*
Correspondence: Henry A Curtis, MD, FACEP, FAAEM 652 Shotwell Street San Francisco, California 94110 USA E-mail: henryacurtis@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Great demands have been placed on disaster medicine educators. There is a need to develop innovative methods to educate Emergency Physicians in the ever-expanding body of disaster medicine knowledge. The authors sought to demonstrate that video-based learning (VBL) could be a promising alternative to traditional learning methods for teaching disaster medicine core competencies.

Hypothesis/Problem

The objective was to compare VBL to traditional lecture (TL) for instructing Emergency Medicine residents in the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP; Irving, Texas USA) disaster medicine core competencies of patient triage and decontamination.

Methods

A randomized, controlled pilot study compared two methods of instruction for mass triage, decontamination, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Emergency Medicine resident learning was measured with a knowledge quiz, a Likert scale measuring comfort, and a practical exercise. An independent samples t-test compared the scoring of the VBL with the TL group.

Results

Twenty-six residents were randomized to VBL (n=13) or TL (n=13). Knowledge score improvement following video (14.9%) versus lecture (14.1%) did not differ significantly between the groups (P=.74). Comfort score improvement also did not differ (P=.64) between video (18.3%) and lecture groups (15.8%). In the practical skills assessment, the VBL group outperformed the TL group overall (70.4% vs 55.5%; P<.0001), with significantly better performance in donning PPE and decontamination. Although not part of the original study design, a three-month post-hoc analysis was performed. When comparing the pre-intervention and three-month post-hoc performances, there were no significant differences in knowledge increases between VBL versus TL (P=.41) or in comfort (P=.39).

Conclusion

Video modules can be as effective as TL when utilized to train Emergency Medicine residents in the ACEP disaster medicine core competencies of patient triage and decontamination.

Curtis HA , Trang K , Chason KW , Biddinger PD . Video-Based Learning vs Traditional Lecture for Instructing Emergency Medicine Residents in Disaster Medicine Principles of Mass Triage, Decontamination, and Personal Protective Equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):7–12.

Keywords

decontaminationdisaster medicineemergency medicine residentsmass triagepersonal protective equipmenttraditional lecturevideo-based learning
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 7 - 12
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: none

References

1. Schultz, CH, Koenig, KL, Whiteside, M, Murray, R, National Standardized All-Hazard Disaster Core Competencies Task Force. Development of national standardized all-hazard disaster core competencies for acute care physicians, nurses, and EMS professionals. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(3):196-208.Google Scholar
2. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Healthcare at the Crossroads: Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Community-Wide Emergency Preparedness Systems. JCAHO; Washington, DC USA; 2003.Google Scholar
3. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety, and Health Administration. OSHA Best Practices for Hospital-based First Receivers of Victims from Mass Casualty Incidents Involving the Release of Hazardous Substances. OSHA: Washington, DC USA; 2005.Google Scholar
4. Sarin, RR, Cattamanchi, S, Alqahtani, A, Aljohani, M, Ardalan, A, Ciottone, G. Disaster Education: A Survey Study to Analyze Disaster Medicine Training in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs in the United States. American College of Emergency Physicians Research Forum; Chicago, Illinois USA. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(4):368-373.Google Scholar
5. Paganini, M, Borrelli, F, Cattani, J, et al. Assessment of disaster preparedness among emergency departments in Italian hospitals: a cautious warning for disaster risk reduction and management capacity. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):101.Google Scholar
6. ACGME Emergency Medicine Programs Academic Year 2016-2017 United States. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/Report/1. Accessed March 20, 2017.Google Scholar
7. Cardall, S, Krupat, E, Ulrich, M. Live lecture versus video-recorded lecture: are students voting with their feet? Acad Med. 2008;83(12):1174-1178.Google Scholar
8. US Department of Homeland Security. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Technical Emergency Response Training Student Manual PER-260. US DHS; Washington, DC USA; 2005.Google Scholar
9. US Medical Institute of Chemical Defense. Hospital Management of Chemical, Biological, Radiological/Nuclear, and Explosive Incidents course syllabus. US MICD; Washington, DC USA; 2009.Google Scholar
10. US Army Training and Doctrine Command. CBRN Decontamination: Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Decontamination: FM 3-11.5. US Army; Fort Monroe, Virginia USA; 2006.Google Scholar
11. US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM). Chemical Weapons Improved Response Program (CWIRP) Playbook: Guidelines for Responding to and Managing a Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorist Event. US Army; Washington, DC USA; 2000.Google Scholar
12. US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM). Guidelines for Use of Personal Protective Equipment by Law Enforcement Personnel During a Terrorist Chemical Agent Incident. US Army; Washington, DC USA; 2001.Google Scholar
13. US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense (USAMRICD), Chemical Casualty Care Division. Medical Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook. USAMRICD; Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland USA; 2007.Google Scholar
14. US Army Training and Doctrine Command. Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries: FM 4-02.285 (FM 8-285). US Army; Fort Monroe, Virginia USA; 2007.Google Scholar
15. US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command (SBCCOM). Guidelines for Mass Casualty Decontamination During a Terrorist Chemical Agent Incident. US Army; Washington, DC USA; 2000.Google Scholar
16. Homepage. Website for Hazmat for Healthcare Hazmat for Healthcare website. http://www.hazmatforhealthcare.org/index.cfm?section=1. Accessed March 20, 2017.Google Scholar
17. Duodote™ (Atropine and Pralidoxime Chloride Injection) Auto-Injector instruction sheet . 1st ed. Meridian Medical Technologies. Inc; Columbia, Maryland USA; 2012: 1-8.Google Scholar
18. United Kingdom Home Office. The Decontamination of People Exposed to Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) Substances or Material. Strategic National Guidance. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom; 2004.Google Scholar
19. START Adult Triage Algorithm Chemical Hazards Emergency Medical Management. US Department of Health and Human Services website. https://chemm.nlm.nih.gov/startadult.htm. Accessed March 20, 2017.Google Scholar
20. Gray, D. Disaster plan education: how we made and tested a video. J Accid Emerg Med. 1996;13(1):21-22.Google Scholar
21. Einspruch, EL, Lynch, B, Aufderheide, TP, Nichol, G, Becker, L. Retention of CPR skills learned in a traditional AHA Heartsaver course versus 30-min video self-training: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2007;74(3):476-486.Google Scholar
22. Lynch, B, Einspruch, EL, Nichol, G, Becker, LB, Aufderheide, TP, Idris, A. Effectiveness of a 30-min CPR self-instruction program for lay responders: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2005;67(1):31-43.Google Scholar
23. Curtis, H. The Role of Video Based Learning in the Development of Comprehensive Disaster Medicine Education. American College of Emergency Physicians Disaster Medicine Section Newsletter in American College of Emergency Physicians website. https://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=49172. Accessed March 20, 2017.Google Scholar
24. Bartley, B, Fisher, J, Stella, J. Video of a disaster drill is effective in educating registrars on the hospital disaster plan. Emerg Med Australas. 2007;19(1):39-44.Google Scholar
25. Radiological terrorism: just in time training for hospital clinicians. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/justintime.asp. Accessed March 20, 2017.Google Scholar
26. McCurley, MC, Miller, CW, Tucker, FE, et al. Educating medical staff about responding to a radiological or nuclear emergency. Health Phys. 2009;96(5 Suppl 2):S50-54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. T-L W. Impact of on-line video teaching on utilization of web-based and non-web-based learning in disaster medicine in Taiwan. Ann Disaster Med. 2006;4(2):66-71.Google Scholar
28. Hsu, EB, Jenckes, MW, Catlett, CL, et al. Effectiveness of hospital staff mass-casualty incident training methods: a systematic literature review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19(3):191-199.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Curtis et al. supplementary material

Curtis et al. supplementary material 1

Download Curtis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 60.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Curtis et al. supplementary material

Curtis et al. supplementary material 2

Download Curtis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 38.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Curtis et al. supplementary material

Curtis et al. supplementary material 3

Download Curtis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 65.5 KB