Title |
Does the unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation maintain the participants’ perceived self-efficacy? An observational prospective study with medical students
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Education, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-0944-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anne Weiss, Morgan Jaffrelot, Jean-Claude Bartier, Thierry Pottecher, Isabelle Borraccia, Gilles Mahoudeau, Eric Noll, Véronique Brunstein, Chloé Delacour, Thierry Pelaccia |
Abstract |
The death of a simulated patient is controversial. Some educators feel that having a manikin die is prejudicial to learning; others feel it is a way of better preparing students for these situations. Perceived self-efficacy (PSE) reflects a person's perception of their ability to carry out a task. A high PSE is necessary to manage a task efficiently. In this study, we measured the impact of the death of a simulated patient on medical students' perceived self-efficacy concerning their ability to cope with a situation of cardiac arrest. We carried out a single-centre, observational, prospective study. In group 1 (n = 27), pre-graduate medical students were warned of the possible death of the manikin; group 2 students were not warned (n = 29). The students' PSE was measured at the end of the simulated situation and after the debriefing. The PSE of the two groups was similar before the debriefing (p = 0.41). It had significantly progressed at the end of the debriefing (p < 0,001). No significant difference was noted between the 2 groups (p = 0.382). The simulated death of the manikin did not have a negative impact on the students' PSE, whether or not they had been warned of the possible occurrence of such an event. Our study helps defend the position which supports the inclusion of unexpected death of the manikin in a simulation setting. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 13% |
Belgium | 1 | 7% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | 7% |
Canada | 1 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
Spain | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 53% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 27% |
Scientists | 2 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 16% |
Researcher | 7 | 8% |
Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
Professor | 5 | 5% |
Other | 23 | 25% |
Unknown | 30 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 31% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 24% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
Other | 3 | 3% |
Unknown | 31 | 33% |