Scholarlink

<p>Early recognition of shockable and non-shockable rhythms is critical for survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Team-based learning (TBL) occurs in emergency care, yet its impact on rhythm recognition remains unclear. We tested whether team-based and individual formats yielded equivalent short-term improvements in OHCA rhythm recognition. A single-center, session-level cluster-randomized parallel-group equivalence trial was conducted within an induction course for newly hired EMS personnel in South Korea. Eight training sessions (four per arm) were the unit of randomization, allocated in permuted blocks of size two in TBL→Individual (AB) or Individual→TBL (BA) sequences. The 90-min curriculum included lectures, interactive defibrillator rhythm cases, and feedback. Outcome was OHCA rhythm recognition (0–9). Secondary outcomes included confidence (1–5 Likert scale) and 1-month online follow-ups. Paired t-tests, analysis of covariance, and equivalence testing within a 1.0-point margin were used. Participants (<i>n</i> = 387) completed both assessments (individual 188, team 199). Knowledge improved by + 1.32 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–1.52). Between-format difference in gain (team−individual = − 0.13; 90% CI − 0.47 to 0.21) met the equivalence margin. At one month, knowledge gains were maintained among completers, but follow-up completion was differential between arms. Paramedic job category was independently associated with higher post-training scores, whereas career duration was not. When content and feedback were held constant, team-based and individual formats yielded equivalent short-term gains in arrest-rhythm recognition. The 1-month retention findings should be interpreted cautiously because of differential follow-up completion. Future work should test behavioral and patient-level outcomes.</p><p><b>Clinical trial registration</b> This trial was retrospectively registered at the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, KCT0011562) on February 2, 2026.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Team-based versus individual learning for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm recognition in newly hired emergency medical service providers: cluster-randomized equivalence trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月12日

查看全文
  • Young Shin Cho,
  • Choung Ah Lee

摘要

Early recognition of shockable and non-shockable rhythms is critical for survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Team-based learning (TBL) occurs in emergency care, yet its impact on rhythm recognition remains unclear. We tested whether team-based and individual formats yielded equivalent short-term improvements in OHCA rhythm recognition. A single-center, session-level cluster-randomized parallel-group equivalence trial was conducted within an induction course for newly hired EMS personnel in South Korea. Eight training sessions (four per arm) were the unit of randomization, allocated in permuted blocks of size two in TBL→Individual (AB) or Individual→TBL (BA) sequences. The 90-min curriculum included lectures, interactive defibrillator rhythm cases, and feedback. Outcome was OHCA rhythm recognition (0–9). Secondary outcomes included confidence (1–5 Likert scale) and 1-month online follow-ups. Paired t-tests, analysis of covariance, and equivalence testing within a 1.0-point margin were used. Participants (n = 387) completed both assessments (individual 188, team 199). Knowledge improved by + 1.32 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–1.52). Between-format difference in gain (team−individual = − 0.13; 90% CI − 0.47 to 0.21) met the equivalence margin. At one month, knowledge gains were maintained among completers, but follow-up completion was differential between arms. Paramedic job category was independently associated with higher post-training scores, whereas career duration was not. When content and feedback were held constant, team-based and individual formats yielded equivalent short-term gains in arrest-rhythm recognition. The 1-month retention findings should be interpreted cautiously because of differential follow-up completion. Future work should test behavioral and patient-level outcomes.

Clinical trial registration This trial was retrospectively registered at the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, KCT0011562) on February 2, 2026.