• Anne-Sophie Nyssen, Robert Larbuisson, Marc Janssens, Philippe Pendeville, and Alain Mayné.
• Department of Work Psychology, Bat. B-32 FAPSE, University of Liège, 4000 LIEGE Sart-Tilman, Belgium. asnyssen@ulg.ac.be
• Anesth. Analg. 2002 Jun 1;94(6):1560-5, table of contents.

UnlabelledIn this study, we compared two different training simulators (the computer screen-based simulator versus the full-scale simulator) with respect to training effectiveness in anesthesia residents. Participants were evaluated in the management of a simulated preprogrammed scenario of anaphylactic shock using two variables: treatment score and diagnosis time. Our results showed that simulators can contribute significantly to the improvement of performance but that learning in treating simulated crisis situations such as anaphylactic shock did not significantly vary between full-scale and computer screen-based simulators. Consequently, the initial decision on whether to use a full-scale or computer screen-based training simulator should be made on the basis of cost and learning objectives rather than on the basis of technical or fidelity criteria. Our results support the contention that screen-based simulators are good devices to acquire technical skills of crisis management. Mannequin-based simulators would probably provide better training for behavioral aspects of crisis management, such as communication, leadership, and interpersonal conflicts, but this was not tested in the current study.ImplicationsWe compared two different training simulators (computer screen-based versus full-scale) for training anesthesia residents to better document the effectiveness of such devices as training tools. This is an important issue, given the extensive use and the high cost of mannequin-based simulators in anesthesiology.

9 keywords...

hide…