The Science Journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care

2010 OPEN FORUM Abstracts


Patricia A. Achuff1, Maureen Ginda1, Roberta L. Hales2, David L. Rodgers2, Linda Allen-Napoli1, Akira Nishisaki3; 1Respiratory Care, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; 2Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; 3Critical Care Medicine, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

Background: Isoflurane administration for asthma is an infrequent clinical intervention for most respiratory therapists. The use of high-fidelity simulation has been shown to be effective for other respiratory care activities. This study sought to determine the impact of high-fidelity simulation on respiratory therapists’ knowledge after their experience in a simulation as either a hands on participant or as an observer. Methods: A five-question knowledge-based pretest on the use of the Drager Apollo anesthesia machine was given prior to an asthma simulation requiring Isoflurane administration. Subjects were assigned to be either hands on participants or observers of the simulation based on their likelihood to be exposed to the anesthesia machine with observers having a lower likelihood. Immediately after the simulation, the knowledge test was administered again. Approximately 2 months after the simulation, all subjects were retested. Results: 103 respiratory therapists took the pretest. 75 subjects had hands on experience in the simulation, while 28 observed. The pretest showed no difference between the two groups (p = .480). On immediate post test the hands on group scored significantly higher than the observation group (mean 89.3 versus 78.6, p <0.001). At approximately 2 months (mean 64.3 days), subjects were tested again. The hands on group had a mean of 84.8 and the observation group had a mean of 60.0 (p <0.0001). The rate of knowledge degradation over the two month interval for the hands on group was also significantly less than the observer group (mean 4.5 versus 18.6, p = 0.003). The statistical method used was mean +/- standard of error and t test. Conclusions: Hands on simulation experience produces better knowledge outcomes than observation immediately post simulation and after two months. Knowledge degradation for those with hands on simulation experience is significantly less than for those who observe. Sponsored Research - None