...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Advanced life support cardiac arrest scenario test evaluation.
【24h】

Advanced life support cardiac arrest scenario test evaluation.

机译：高级生命支持心脏骤停情景测试评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: The cardiac arrest scenario test (CASTest) is a central component of the assessment strategy on the Advanced Life Support Course. The aim of this study was to establish equivalence between the four different CASTest scenarios and investigate the impact of profession, candidate order and course centre on the pass rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cluster randomised study. CASTest scenarios were randomly allocated to candidates stratified by course centre. Candidate demographics and performance were recorded on the criterion referenced check list along with the final assessment outcome (pass/fail). Differences in pass rates according scenario; profession, course centre and candidate order were examined by Chi-squared and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Two thousand, four hundred and forty-nine assessments from 65 course centres were evaluated. There was no difference in pass rate between scenarios (average pass rate 74.4%). Pass rates according to course centre varied widely (40-93%, P<0.0001) as did professional group (42-100%, P<0.0001). The order that candidates took the test did not influence the pass rate. CONCLUSION: The CASTest assessment scenarios used during ALS testing appear equivalent in terms of difficulty. In contrast, the professional background of the candidate and centre at which the assessment is performed do significantly influence the likelihood of passing the assessment. Further evaluation of the reasons for differences between course centres is required.
机译：背景：心脏骤停情景测试（CASTest）是高级生命支持课程评估策略的重要组成部分。这项研究的目的是确定四种不同的CASTest情景之间的等效性，并研究专业，候选人顺序和课程中心对合格率的影响。材料与方法：这是一项随机研究。 CASTest场景被随机分配给课程中心分层的候选人。候选人的人口统计学和表现与最终评估结果（通过/失败）一起记录在标准参考检查表上。根据方案的合格率差异;通过卡方和多元逻辑回归检验专业，课程中心和候选人顺序。结果：对来自65个课程中心的2048个评估进行了评估。方案之间的通过率没有差异（平均通过率74.4％）。根据课程中心的及格率，专业组（42-100％，P <0.0001）的差异很大（40-93％，P <0.0001）。考生参加考试的顺序不会影响及格率。结论：在ALS测试中使用的CASTest评估方案在难度上似乎是等效的。相反，进行评估的候选人和中心的专业背景确实会影响通过评估的可能性。需要进一步评估课程中心之间差异的原因。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号