The Learning Outcome of Resuscitation Teamwork Training in Postgraduate Year Doctors and Nurses

October 3, 2024 updated by: Taipei Medical University Hospital

The Learning Outcome of Resuscitation Teamwork Training on Developing Teamwork Performance in Postgraduate Year Doctors and Nurses - Comparison of Board Game-based Learning, Simulation-based Learning and Lecture-based Learning.

It is challenging for healthcare team to manage emergency patient effectively. Most of these critical patients have medical conditions and need complex medical managements. Research findings have shown that poor healthcare teamwork would result in poor communication, missing information, and insufficient situation monitoring and thus compromise patient safety. Simulation has been proved as an effective method to develop teamwork competency. However, comparing to traditional training model, simulation requires more resources such as funding, spaces, time, administration staffs, schedule, facilitators, and equipment. It would not be easy to delivery in various professional departments. Game-based learning was a known effective and learner-centered learning model which required less resources. Researchers have shown that game-based learning has higher acceptance for the learners and can improve learners' knowledge, attitude, motivation, and performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the learning effectiveness of resuscitation teamwork training of board game-based learning, simulation-based learning and lecture-based learning in PGY doctors and nurses.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

This will be a prospective, longitudinal, and randomized controlled trial design. A total number of 180 PGY doctors and nurses will be enrolled from a teaching hospital in northern Taipei City. They will be randomized into board game-based learning group, simulation-based learning group, and lecture-based learning group. Three groups will receive "Emergency Medical Response Teamwork" training and all of these contents were developed according to America Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and ECC and TeamSTEPPS curriculum from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. We will collect the professional demography, the professional medical knowledge for medical management, the concept of knowledge for teamwork, team performance, team attitude, medical management, course survey, and cognitive load scales. We will compare the learning effectiveness between three groups in pretest, posttest, and three-months follow up. Statistical methods used included descriptive and inferential statistics, χ2 chi-square tests, Kruskal-Wallis H test, Friedman test, Wilcoxon test, generalized estimating equations, and text mining.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

124

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Taiwan
      • New Taipei City, Taiwan, 23442
        • Jen-Chieh Wu

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

20 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Postgraduate Year doctors who is 20 years old and work in primary care.
  2. Postgraduate Year nurses who is 20 years old and work in primary care

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Participant do not work in primary care provide.
  2. Healthcare provider do not delivery in relative adult care department, such as pediatric department, obstetrics department, and psychiatry department so on.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Board game-based learning (experience group-I)
The team of PGY doctors and nurses receive training in resuscitation teamwork skills through a board game-based teaching approach.
Behavioral: Board game-based learning
The team of PGY doctors and nurses received 3 hours training intervention in resuscitation teamwork skills through a board game-based teaching approach.
Other Names:
  • experience group-I
Experimental: Simulation-based learning (experience group-II)
The team of PGY doctors and nurses receive training in resuscitation teamwork skills through a simulation-based teaching approach.
Behavioral: Simulation-based learning
The team of PGY doctors and nurses received 3 hours training intervention in resuscitation teamwork skills through a simulation-based teaching approach.
Other Names:
  • experience group-II
Other: Lecture-based learning (control group)
The team of PGY doctors and nurses receive training in resuscitation teamwork skills through an interactive lecture-based learning approach.
Behavioral: Lecture-based learning
The team of PGY doctors and nurses received 3 hours training intervention in resuscitation teamwork skills through an interactive lecture-based approach.
Other Names:
  • control group

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Team Performance Observation Tool
Time Frame: Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
The assessment of the medical team's teamwork performance was conducted using the Team Performance Observation Tool, which includes a 23-item rating checklist. This checklist is divided into five categories: team structure (four items), leadership (six items), communication (four items), situation monitoring (five items), and mutual support (four items). Scores for each item range from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent), resulting in a cumulative score between 23 and 115. A higher score indicates better teamwork performance.
Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
Knowledge of Teamwork Assessment
Time Frame: Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
The "Knowledge of Teamwork" assessment, aimed at evaluating healthcare professionals' understanding of teamwork knowledge, consists of 23 multiple-choice items based on the Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS) Learning Benchmarks provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Each item is formulated as a statement that participants must evaluate as true or false, choosing from five available answer options, of which only one is correct. Participants earn one point for each correct response, with no points awarded for incorrect answers, resulting in a total possible score of 0 to 23. A higher score signifies a more comprehensive understanding of the principles of teamwork knowledge.
Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Interprofessional Collaboration Scale
Time Frame: Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
The attitudes of healthcare professionals toward interprofessional collaboration were assessed using the 'Interprofessional Collaboration Scale' (IPC), which consists of 26 items. The Interprofessional Collaboration Scale covers three main aspects: communication, accommodation, and isolation. We adopted the first 13 items because they are relevant to medical and nursing professional backgrounds. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with total scores ranging from 13 to 52. A higher score indicates a more positive attitude toward interprofessional collaboration.
Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
Resuscitation Knowledge Scale
Time Frame: Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
The healthcare professionals' resuscitation medical knowledge was assessed using the 'Adavance Cardiac Life Support Precourse Self-Assessment,' which consisted of 60 items. The assessment covered three main aspects: rhythm identification, pharmacology, and practical application. We selected 20 items related to resuscitation medical management (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrilation, asystole, pulseless electrical activity). The total score ranged from 0 (minimum) to 20 (maximum), with higher scores indicating a better understanding of resuscitation medical knowledge.
Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
Medical Task Performance
Time Frame: Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
The medical team's resuscitation management performance was assessed using the "Medical Task Performance" checklist. The checklist items were referenced from the 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Twenty items were identified by an expert panel based on the resuscitation guidelines, including applying adequate oxygen according to the patient's dynamic condition, timely identification of cardiac arrest and provision of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation, identification of shockable rhythms and delivery of timely and correct shocks, and correct administration of resuscitation medication. The checklist was rated on a dichotomous scale with scores of 2 (complete), 1 (partial), and 0 (incomplete). The total score ranged from 0 (minimum) to 40 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better resuscitation management performance by the medical team.
Pretest at the 0 week, posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks, and follow-up test at the 16 weeks.
Learning Cognitive Load
Time Frame: The posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.
The learning cognitive load of healthcare professionals was assessed using the 'Chinese Version of the Learning Cognitive Load Questionnaire,' which consists of 8 items. The questionnaire encompasses two main aspects: mental load and mental effort. The scale ranges from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree), with a total score from 6 (minimun) to 48 (maximun). A higher score indicates a higher learning cognitive load.
The posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Taipei Medical University Hospital

Collaborators

Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Jen-Chieh Wu, Taipei Medical University Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 7, 2022

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 13, 2022

Study Completion (Actual)

December 13, 2022

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

March 9, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 21, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

March 31, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

November 22, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 3, 2024

Last Verified

August 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • N202201126

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Patient Care Team

Clinical Trials on Board game-based learning

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Suriname

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe