Evidence Hub

Randomized Controlled Trial of Telementoring During Resource-Limited Patient Care Simulation Improves Caregiver Performance and Patient Survival

Pamplin JC, Veazey SR, Barczak S, Fonda SJ, Serio-Melvin ML, Ross KS, Colombo CJ

Critical care explorations, 2024

12 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the impact of telementoring on caregiver performance during a high-fidelity medical simulation model (HFMSM) of a critically ill patient in a resource-limited setting.

Design: A two-center, randomized, controlled study using a HFMSM of a patient with community-acquired pneumonia complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Setting: A notional clinic in a remote location staffed by a single clinician and nonmedical assistant.

Participants: Clinicians with limited experience managing critically ill patients.

Interventions: Telemedicine (TM) support.

Measurements: The primary outcome was clinical performance as measured by accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of care. Secondary outcomes were patient survival, procedural quality, subjective assessment of the HFMSM, and perceived workload.

Main results: TM participants (N = 11) performed better than non-TM (NTM, N = 12) in providing expected care (accuracy), delivering care more consistently (reliability), and without consistent differences in efficiency (timeliness of care). Accuracy: TM completed 91% and NTM 42% of expected tasks and procedures. Efficiency: groups did not differ in the mean (± sd) minutes it took to obtain an advanced airway successfully (TM 15.2 ± 10.5 vs. NTM 22.8 ± 8.4, p = 0.10) or decompress a tension pneumothorax with a needle (TM 0.7 ± 0.5 vs. NTM 0.6 ± 0.9, p = 0.65). TM was slower than NTM in completing thoracostomy (22.3 ± 10.2 vs. 12.3 ± 4.8, p = 0.03). Reliability:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free