IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflective practice improves Basic Life Support training outcomes: A randomized controlled study

Author

Listed:
  • Marie S Thommes
  • Michelle Schmidt
  • Sophie I Lambert
  • Michael T Schauwinhold
  • Martin Klasen
  • Saša Sopka

Abstract

Introduction: Practical skills training is an essential part of medical education. An important example is the training of Basic Life Support (BLS) skills, which are key to improve patient outcomes in life-threatening situations. However, despite practical training, BLS performance is often sub-optimal even among healthcare professionals and medical students. Finding more effective training methods is therefore of high importance. A promising method to enhance learning outcomes is reflective practice. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a short reflective practice intervention following standard BLS training (Peyton’s 4-step approach) improves BLS training outcomes, reflected in higher BLS performance and higher self-confidence to perform BLS. Method: 287 first-year medical students were randomly assigned to one of two BLS training conditions: 1) standard BLS training (ST), 2) ST followed by a 15-minute reflective practice exercise. Outcome parameters included objective BLS performance data assessed by a resuscitation manikin, and students’ self-reported confidence in their BLS skills. Outcomes were assessed directly after the training (T0) and re-assessed one week later (T1). A two-way mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of the intervention on BLS performance and self-reported confidence. Significance was determined by two-sided 95% confidence intervals. Results: The intervention group performed significantly more effective compressions at T1 and began significantly faster with performing their first chest compression at T0 and T1, in comparison to the control group. No significant differences between study groups regarding their self-reported confidence to perform BLS were observed. Conclusion: This research shows that standard BLS training accompanied with a simple, cost-effective reflective practice exercise can improve learners’ BLS skill acquisition and retention. This shows that reflective practice has the potential to enhance practical skills training in medicine; yet, more empirical studies are needed to examine its broader applicability.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie S Thommes & Michelle Schmidt & Sophie I Lambert & Michael T Schauwinhold & Martin Klasen & Saša Sopka, 2023. "Reflective practice improves Basic Life Support training outcomes: A randomized controlled study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287908
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287908
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287908&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287908?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0178210 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Saša Sopka & Fabian Hahn & Lina Vogt & Kim Hannah Pears & Rolf Rossaint & Jenny Rudolph & Martin Klasen, 2021. "Peer video feedback builds basic life support skills: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.