Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:57:36.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of a multifaceted pediatric sedation course: self-directed learning versus a formal continuing medical education course to improve knowledge of sedation guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Suzan Schneeweiss  and
Savithiri Ratnapalan
Suzan Schneeweiss*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. and the Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ont.
Savithiri Ratnapalan
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. and the Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ont.
*
Hospital for Sick Children, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 555 University Avenue, Toronto ON M5G 1X8, suzan.schneeweiss@sickkids.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Procedural sedation guidelines were established for a tertiary care pediatric emergency department (ED). We developed a pediatric procedural sedation course to disseminate these guidelines.

Objective:

Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a sedation course in improving physicians' knowledge of pediatric procedural sedation practices and guidelines, relative to individual self-directed learning.

Methods:

We recruited emergency staff physicians and fellows as well as fourth-year pediatric residents in a tertiary care pediatric ED to participate in a randomized, controlled, educational intervention. All consenting physicians received pediatric sedation educational material for individual study 2 weeks before a learning assessment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups. The self-directed learning group (n = 24) completed a multiple-choice examination without receiving any formal teaching. The study group (n = 24) participated in a 4-hour formal multi-faceted sedation course before writing the multiple-choice examination.

Results:

The groups did not differ significantly in demographic characteristics or self-perceived knowledge of pediatric sedation. The formal teaching group's median examination score (83.3%; range 75.8%–96.5%) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than the median examination score of participants in the self-directed study group (73.3%, range 43.5%–86.6%).

Conclusion:

The multifaceted sedation course was more effective in improving physician knowledge and understanding of sedation guidelines and practices than unstructured, self-directed learning.

Keywords

emergency medicinepediatricssedationcontinuing educationguidelineslearning
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 93 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2007

References

1.Petrack, EM, Christopher, NC, Kriwinsky, J. Pain management in the emergency department: patterns of analgesic utilization. Pediatrics 1997;99:711–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Alexander, J, Manno, M. Underuse of analgesia in very young pediatric patients with isolated painful injuries. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:197–205.Google Scholar
3.Newman, DH, Azer, MM, Pitetti, RD, et al. When is a patient safe for discharge after procedural sedation? The time of adverse effect events in 1367 pediatric procedural sedations. Ann Emerg Med 2003;42:627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Malviya, S, Voepel-Lewis, T, Tait, AR. Adverse events and risk factors associated with the sedation of children by non-anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 1997;85:1207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Pitetti, R, Singh, S, Pierce, MC. Safe and efficacious use of procedural sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists in a pediatric emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:1090–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Cote, CJ, Notterman, DA, Karl, HW, et al. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics. A critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics 2000;105:805–14.Google Scholar
7.Hoffman, GM, Nowakowski, R, Troshynski, TJ, et al. Risk reduction in pediatric procedural sedation by application of an American Academy of Pediatrics/American Society of Anesthesiologists process model. Pediatrics 2002;109:236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:663–7.Google Scholar
9.Americian College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:177–96.Google Scholar
10.American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics 1992;89:1110–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients during and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: addendum. Pediatrics 2002;110:836–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologist. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 1996;84:459–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 2002;96:1004–17.Google Scholar
14.Innes, G, Murphy, M, Nijssen-Jordan, C, et al. Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. Canadian consensus guidelines. Can J Emerg Med 1999;17:145–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Roy, R, Griffiths, K., eds. Sedation and analgesia guidelines. In: The 2003-2004 Formulary of Drugs. The Hospital for Sick Children. Toronto (ON): The Graphic Centre, HSC; 2003.Google Scholar
16.Lomas, J, Anderson, GM, Dominick-Pierre, K, et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1306–11.Google Scholar
17.Cabana, MD, Rand, CS, Powe, NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Davis, DA, Taylor-Vaisey, A. Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretical concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997;157:408–16.Google Scholar
19.Ward, MM, Vaughn, TE, Uden-Holman, T, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding a widely implemented guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2002;8:155–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Worrall, G, Chaulk, P, Freake, D. The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. CMAJ 1997;156:1705–12.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Grilli, R, Lomas, J. Evaluating the message: the relationship between compliance rate and the subject of practice guideline. Med Care 1994;32:202–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Grol, R, Dalhuijsen, J, Thomas, S, et al. Attributes of clinical guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998; 317:858–61.Google Scholar
23.Hayward, RSA. Clinical practice guidelines on trial. CMAJ 1997;156:1725–7.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Rogers, EM. Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995;21:324–8.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Davis, DA, Thompson, MA, Oxman, AD, et al. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995;274:700–5.Google Scholar
26.Davis, DA, Thomson, MA, Oxman, AD, et al. Evidence for the effectiveness of CME: a review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992; 268:1111–7.Google Scholar
27.Oxman, AD, Thomson, MA, Davis, DA, et al. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995;153:1423–31.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Sectish, TC, Floriani, V, Badat, MC, et al. Continuous professional development: raising the bar for pediatricians. Pediatrics 2002;110:152–6.Google Scholar
29.Knowles, MS. Introduction: the art and science of helping adults learn. In Andragogy in action. Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 1984:1–21.Google Scholar
30.Nunnally, JC. Validity. In: Psychometric Theory. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill;1978: 87–113.Google Scholar
31.McClaran, J, Snell, L, Franco, E. Type of clinical problem is a determinant of physicians’ self-selected learning methods in their practice settings. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1998;18:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Graham, ID, Beardall, S, Carter, AO, et al. The state of the science and art of practice guidelines development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada. J Eval Clin Pract 2003;9:195–202.Google Scholar
33.Grimshaw, JM, Russell, IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Grimshaw, JM, Shirran, L, Thomas, R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39(8 Suppl 2):II2–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Gross, PA, Greenfield, S, Cretin, S, et al. Optimal methods for guideline implementation: conclusions from Leeds Castle meeting. Med Care 2001;39(8 Suppl 2): II85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Ockene, JK, Zapka, JG. Provider education to promote implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2000;118:S33–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed